edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Vote: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Procedure Referral to Health Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled  Speaker Recalled In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Procedure Referral to Health Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled  Speaker Recalled In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:613;Page:10010] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 65 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 3 New Zealand First 1 Green Party 9. 
Noes 52 
New Zealand National 24; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 121 in the name of the Hon Damien O'Connor to clause 11(2) be agreed to.
Hodgson Pete: Obituaries — Maurice Wilkins 
Hodgson Pete: Obituaries — Maurice Wilkins 
[Volume:620;Page:15947] 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Research Science and Technology) 
: 
 I would like to add the Government’s comments to the motion properly put by the member who has just resumed his seat. Maurice Wilkins was born and raised in the lower half of the North Island and attended Victoria University. His main contribution to the world of science— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have no objection at all to members of the House on this occasion expressing their views sentiments and concern about the loss to the scientific community of a prominent scientist who happened also to be a prominent New Zealander. You have just asked Maurice Williamson to resume his seat— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No I asked him to move the motion. He could have carried on speaking at any time. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Well the inference taken was that you had had enough of listening to the member and wanted him to sit down. I am just going to say that if Mr Hodgson is going to add his comments and others intend to do that as well I think it would be fair to give Mr Williamson the opportunity to have his comments put on the  
Hansard 
 record. But he did seek leave for a non-debatable motion. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The problem I have is that Mr Williamson then did not move a motion; he just made some comments. No one objected when I asked whether there was any objection—there was not any—and I then called the member. The member could then have moved the motion; he would have been able to do so. All that I wanted him to do was to move the motion. I assumed that because he had already begun talking about this very influential New Zealander we would construct a motion along those lines. That is why I accepted what he did. [ 
Interruption 
] Well perhaps the member would like to do that now. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: I certainly was going to move a motion but wanted to put a bit of background. I will start with the motion. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is right.
Vote: Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:612;Page:9468] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 46 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6. 
Noes 70 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 7; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
Clauses 1 to 40 and schedules as amended agreed to. 
Bill reported with amendment.
Pettis Jill: Prisoners' and Victims' Claims Bill — Second Reading 
Pettis Jill: Prisoners' and Victims' Claims Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:20591] 
JILL PETTIS (Labour—Whanganui) 
: 
 I am very pleased to take a brief call on the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Bill. There have been some good speeches on this bill. Most people in New Zealand believe that it is thoroughly wrong to compensate offenders for wrongful treatment but not to require them in turn to pay restitution to the victims they have harmed. This bill is a good bill. It has been thoroughly considered by the Justice and Electoral Committee. It sets out first to ensure that prisoners can be compensated only in exceptional cases and after they have exhausted all other avenues of complaint. The second important aspect of the bill is that it provides for opportunities that have not existed before and new assistance mechanisms by which victims can pursue compensation from those who have offended against them. 
There has been some interesting debate with some conflicting views from Opposition parties that are really more interested in playing politics than in trying to resolve an issue that concerns a large number of New Zealanders. Some rather bizarre statements have been made. We have just listened to a justification from one Opposition member. Also Dr Brash has done another of his flip-flops—he is lining up for yet another jandal award. He has had one position one day and another the very next day literally. Between 14 and 15 September last year he changed his position on this issue yet again. So there is no surety from the National Party at all. 
This bill has been well considered. It is seriously and primarily motivated by the Government’s belief that offenders should not enjoy financial compensation for wrongful treatment without first having to redress the harm that they have caused to their victims. This Government—although it is not widely acknowledged as can be seen from some of the breathless headlines in the newspapers which pay little attention to the facts of the matter—has paid real attention to the matter and has delivered on addressing victims’ rights through legislative means. This bill is yet another step in looking out for the innocent victims of the terrible incidents that occur in New Zealand. I clarify the point that prisoners can be awarded monetary compensation only in the most exceptional cases and that they must have pursued a wide range of avenues of complaint beforehand. 
This is a good bill. I know that the public will welcome it and that a majority in Parliament will welcome it. I look forward to its rapid passage through the House and to the constructive debate that will ensue.
Pettis Jill: Status of Redundancy Payments Bill — First Reading 
Pettis Jill: Status of Redundancy Payments Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:606;Page:4044] 
JILL PETTIS (NZ Labour—Whanganui) 
: 
 I rise to speak briefly obviously in support of this bill. I congratulate my colleague and former bench mate on his initiative in bringing this bill to the House. This bill is important. It is about the rights of workers but it is also about employers as well. As will have been stated by other colleagues from the Government side of the House in their contributions this bill is about fairness. 
I was very interested to hear Mr Key’s comments before he resumed his seat that we all have the right to make choices. I suggest to Mr Key that he has never been made redundant because there is no choice when one is made redundant. Unfortunately that happens to too many workers in the world and not just in New Zealand. In the 1980s my husband and I were made redundant within 3 weeks of each other. Neither of us had any choice over that. 
Shane Ardern 
: Under a Labour Government? 
JILL PETTIS 
: Yes it was. Neither of us had any choice over that at all. I tell Mr Key that it was a traumatic experience. No matter how hard we feel that we have worked ourselves for a short period in our life we have a sense— 
Hon Roger Sowry 
: The member is about to be made redundant again very soon. 
JILL PETTIS 
: Mr Sowry has not made me redundant twice yet and I do not expect that he will do so in the future. During a short period of time in our life when we are made redundant we feel that we have no control over our life. I ask the member to reflect generously on what that situation can be like for people through no fault of their own. In many instances when businesses go under it is not because the employers want them to go under but because of a whole range of conditions and situations in the market at that time. 
I am pleased to support this bill to go to a select committee. I look forward to a large number of submitters giving their views to the committee. I wish the bill a speedy passage through Parliament. While it may not be apparent at this stage the bill is in the interest of both employers and employees.
Hodgson Pete: Transport Legislation Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Hodgson Pete: Transport Legislation Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:16929] 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 I move  
That the Committee divide the bill into the Civil Aviation Amendment Bill (No 2) the Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 2) the Land Transport Management Amendment Bill and the Maritime Transport Amendment Bill 
 divided into Civil Aviation Amendment Bill (No 2) Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 2) Land Transport Management Amendment Bill and Maritime Transport Amendment Bill 
pursuant to Supplementary Order Paper 300 
.
Gallagher Martin: Education (Export Education Levy) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Gallagher Martin: Education (Export Education Levy) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:614;Page:10645] 
MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) 
: 
 At least that speech was given with far more passion than the current leader of the National Party could ever do. I rise to support this bill. It is very very important. It is very important to maintain this critical industry so that students and their home Governments are assured that they will receive quality education in exchange for their very important investment. This bill is good. It is another example of this Government yet again showing excellent leadership.
Ogilvy Bernie: New Organisms and Other Matters Bill — In Committee 
Ogilvy Bernie: New Organisms and Other Matters Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:8926] 
BERNIE OGILVY (United Future) 
: 
 I am pleased to speak in support of the commencement clause. The entering into law of this legislation on 30 October this year will be the culmination of a very long process when one realises that the gazetting for the whole thing started way back on 11 May 2000. So it has been before the House for over 3 years. This process—which has taken more than 3 years—has been stalled for most of that time because of the moratorium. There has been a stalling and I think it has been well worth it. It will ensure that we have an environmentally regulatory regime that is among the most cautious and robust in the whole world. So it was time well spent. 
When it comes to protecting our environment our public health and our economic well-being every effort must be made to do those things. I believe the process has been as cautious as it can possibly be. It has been as cautious as possible short of stalling progress altogether. We note that the necessary partner for our cautious approach has been—and must always be—progress. The potential of genetic technology is too great I believe for our largely agriculturally based economy to be left by the wayside. The royal commission concluded that we should proceed with some caution and I believe 30 October 2003 is high time for us to begin. That is why United Future supports the commencement of this legislation which will impose the regulatory regime that will oversee all applications that come into effect after that date. 
There are some who still argue that we have not done enough and that the moratorium should be extended for yet another 5 years. In my view that is nothing but a blatant stalling tactic. There will always be something to which the opponents of GE technology can point and claim that we do not yet know enough about because we want it 100 percent safe. There will always be a reason that someone can give as to why the moratorium should be extended just a little bit longer. The tests of proof that the opponents of GM are demanding to have in place are so high that practically no technology would have been passed if we had applied this rule in the past. I am talking about developments that we all enjoy today such as electricity and even the motor car for that matter. 
I support the commencement of this legislation on 30 October 2003. Failure to do so would be a sign that we are no longer interested in either scientific or economic progress. As long as it is done in a considered cautious manner—which it is—I see no reason to delay this progress any longer.
Speaker’s Statements — Ringing of the Bell 
Speaker’s Statements — Ringing of the Bell 
[Volume:608;Page:5457] 
Speaker’s Statements 
Ringing of the Bell 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Following discussions at the Standing Orders Committee last week—and I want to say that these discussions ended up in a unanimous decision—I wish to advise of some change I am making to the procedures for the ringing of the bell. In order that members and others within the parliamentary complex are aware that the House has risen the bell will be rung for 10 seconds whenever the House adjourns such as at 10 p.m. on a Tuesday or Wednesday 6 p.m. on a Thursday or when a sitting of the House is suspended such as 6 p.m. on Tuesday and Wednesday and at midnight and for the lunch and dinner adjournments during urgency. This change will take effect from today. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (NZ National—Ilam) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. With regard to the comment you have just made I see that the Standing Orders Committee might have reached a unanimous decision but how does that impose itself upon Parliament? Surely it should be the House that ratifies such a decision. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No that is a decision that was within the gift of the Speaker. I can do that but I took upon myself that I got a unanimous decision from the Standing Orders Committee as all parties are represented on that committee. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have listened to what you said. I am not sure whether you have given the correct impression to members. You said that the bell was to be rung for example at 6 o’clock. In fact one of the reasons the Standing Orders Committee wants the bell rung is the situation we had last Thursday when most members had actually left and the House was carrying on in session—which I say was unparliamentary—but members did not know that. In that particular situation the bell will not be rung at 6 p.m. will it? It will be rung at a different time—in that case I think it was 6.15 p.m.—so MPs will know that on a Thursday they do not jump in their taxis to go to the airport until they have heard the bell. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is perfectly correct and in fact it will ring when a sitting of the House is suspended. That means that if we have started a series of divisions at 5.45 p.m. for example and they go on until 6.15 p.m. the bell will be rung at the end of that series of divisions when I adjourn the House.
Yates Dianne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Yates Dianne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:610;Page:7307] 
DIANNE YATES (NZ Labour—Hamilton East) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I ask for your clarification with regard to a question that I did not want to ask. Speaker’s ruling 123/1 states: “If when a question is called the member in whose name it stands elects not to ask it the member cannot be compelled to do so and unless leave is sought and given to postpone it the question would disappear from the Order Paper.” I ask you whether that is still relevant or has it been superseded?
Benson-Pope David: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
Benson-Pope David: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8145] 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (Senior Whip—NZ Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Tisch Lindsay: Christchurch City Council (Robert McDougall Gallery) Land Vesting Bill — Procedure Second Reading 
Tisch Lindsay: Christchurch City Council (Robert McDougall Gallery) Land Vesting Bill — Procedure Second Reading 
[Volume:611;Page:8803] 
LINDSAY TISCH (Junior Whip—NZ National) 
: 
 I understand that there is still a speaking spot left and National would like to take that spot and have two 5-minute speeches. The speakers who will be speaking have spoken before. I seek leave for two 5-minute speeches. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: It is true; there is one gap left. Leave has been sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.
Barker Rick: Telecommunications (Interception Capability) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Barker Rick: Telecommunications (Interception Capability) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12279] 
Hon RICK BARKER (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Telecommunications (Interception Capability) Bill that it take the bill part by part. 
Motion agreed to.
Ririnui Mita: Building Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Ririnui Mita: Building Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:619;Page:14837] 
MITA RIRINUI (Labour—Waiariki) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Benson-Pope David: Fair Trading Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
Benson-Pope David: Fair Trading Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6859] 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (Senior Whip—NZ Labour) 
: I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No I will take one more. There are a lot of amendments in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall and I am prepared to listen to him.
Franks Stephen: Land Transport (Unauthorised Street and Drag Racing) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Franks Stephen: Land Transport (Unauthorised Street and Drag Racing) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:607;Page:4590] 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I seek clarification of your comments about the breadth of the debate on the schedule. I say that because it appeared to me that it could have been prompted only by a view about the debate on the earlier parts of the bill. ACT was the main subject of attack in that debate. We were not given an opportunity to address the substance. We address substance only and in the schedule there are matters on which we will be in a difficult position if the Chair is minded to take them as relitigation of earlier points because the form of notice in the schedule raises earlier points. 
The message I got is that we are not to be in a position to defend the statements that we made and that require elaboration because they simply became the subject of a political counter-charge. There was no attempt made by other parties to debate the issue. There was simply a torrent of abuse against ACT and its notional supporters.
Barnett Tim: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Barnett Tim: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:610;Page:7226] 
9.  
TIM BARNETT (NZ Labour—Christchurch Central) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Justice 
: What progress has been made in coordinating and managing justice sector information? 
Hon RICK BARKER (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 Very good progress. Today I am launching a new Justice Sector Information Strategy for the next 3 years. This strategy represents the cumulative efforts of all of those within the justice sector such as the Ministry of Justice the Department for Courts the Police and the Department of Corrections to ensure improvements in the quality of information across this sector and to address those areas of information that require improvement. This strategy will also result in better justice information for the whole community. 
Tim Barnett 
: What events have led to the need for a justice sector strategy? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: After 30 years of service the law enforcement system the Wanganui computer has outlived its useful life and a decision has been taken to replace it with a number of departmental systems instead of a single system. That means that although we will have a cheaper system in total in terms of hardware and the opportunity to better tailor systems to the individual needs of each department there could be a possible loss of integration across the sector. This strategy ensures that that does not happen. 
Deborah Coddington 
: In the light of the Minister’s answer can we now take it that this Government’s policy is to do nothing about violent crime which has risen by 13.3 percent since the election and that that does not matter because the bureaucrats are improving their filing skills? What is it going to be: getting tough on violent crime or having better-performing bureaucrats? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: That is a very interesting question and also a bit facetious. Of course the Government is concerned about violent crime and this Government is committed to doing everything it can to reduce it. We are also concerned to ensure that we have good records. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: What consideration did the Minister give to directing the justice sector to investigate the use of non-proprietary justice sector information systems given the international reputation that non-proprietary software has for cost-effectiveness stability security and being easy to manage? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: No instruction was given to the justice sector to that effect but it is interesting to note that a number of other countries are looking at using non-proprietary systems. The systems’ attributes that the member raised are true but those systems are also much more complicated to use. That is one of the issues we have to address in the future.
Brownlee Gerry: General Debates 
Brownlee Gerry: General Debates 
[Volume:607;Page:4425] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (NZ National—Ilam) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Given the generosity of the Government today I seek leave for my time to be extended by a further 5 minutes. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member is perfectly entitled to ask for that. Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is. [ 
Interruption 
]
Duncan Helen: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Duncan Helen: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:621;Page:16303] 
1. HELEN DUNCAN (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What steps is the Government taking to recruit secondary teachers in subject shortage areas? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 A new $18.8 million teaching scholarship scheme will pay for people who are training to be secondary teachers and studying towards degree programmes in the areas of te reo Maori maths physics chemistry and technology—all areas where there are shortages of qualified teachers. These scholarships will be worth more than $20000 to some students and will meet the study fees for a 3-year degree and a year of teacher education. In return recipients will be bonded and expected to teach for the same number of years for which they receive the scholarship. 
Helen Duncan 
: What other initiatives has the Government put in place to help recruit secondary teachers during this period of worldwide shortage? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Other initiatives include secondary subject training allowances worth up to $10000 and available to graduates and near-graduates who will be teachers in biology chemistry computing English maths physics te reo Maori and technology and there are national and international relocation grants student loan support for teachers in certain subjects and funding for retraining. 
Hon Bill English 
: Why has the Minister excluded several thousand students who are training to teach at privately owned institutions from his scholarship scheme? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: It is my understanding that there are only two areas where people are training. One is at the Christchurch graduate college and the other is at Bethlehem and both are eligible for this scheme. 
Bernie Ogilvy 
: If scholarship recipients do not fulfil the bonding requirements and are required to repay the loan in a similar manner to student loans will they also be charged comparable interest on the outstanding amount; if not are they not effectively getting an interest-free student loan? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The answers are yes and therefore irrelevant.
Wong Pansy: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Procedure Referral to Health Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled  Speaker Recalled In Committee Procedure 
Wong Pansy: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Procedure Referral to Health Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled  Speaker Recalled In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:613;Page:9972] 
PANSY WONG (National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Is this a new point of order? 
PANSY WONG 
: Yes. I seek leave to have a 4-minute call to speak on this part. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Leave has been sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is.
Hughes Darren: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 2) — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Hughes Darren: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 2) — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:616;Page:11686] 
DARREN HUGHES (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move 
 That Lindsay Tisch be appointed Acting Chairperson while the House is in Committee on the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 2). 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There appears to be none.
Mallard Trevor: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Stockholm Convention) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Mallard Trevor: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Stockholm Convention) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6994] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: The member asked a reasonable question and the reasonable Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith also asked one earlier as well. If I may reverse back a little bit to answer the member clause 8 as I indicated by way of interjection must be read in the context of both the Act and the whole bill. The Act applies if the use creates or involves a persistent organic pollutant. Clause 7 amends section 30 and new section 25B(3) inserted by clause 5 allows approvals to be granted by the Environment Risk Management Authority for the use of persistent organic pollutants as analytical standards and also for research in laboratories. I think that covers all the points that the member made.
Prebble Richard: Points of Order — Chamber—Absence of Members 
Prebble Richard: Points of Order — Chamber—Absence of Members 
[Volume:624;Page:19306] 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am ruling that the rules remain the same. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: I am somewhat behind the media and I do not know what the rules are. Please let me know what they are. Can the media take a photograph of the empty Government back benches or can they not?
Hughes Darren: Gambling Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Hughes Darren: Gambling Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:622;Page:18114] 
DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 I support the first reading of the Gambling Amendment Bill and its referral to the Government Administration Committee.
Turei Metiria: Estimates Debate —  
Turei Metiria: Estimates Debate —  
[Volume:610;Page:7244] 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 In the estimates report on education there is a small paragraph on student loans and student debt. In that teeny-weeny paragraph the Associate Minister of Education (Tertiary Education) admits that student debt in this country “will continue to grow”. This Government has been consistently changing its approach to tertiary education policy since it was elected. Students supported the Labour Government after Labour ran a heavy campaign in 1999 to sort out the student loan scheme. Four years later the student loan burden is not getting any lighter and the Government’s policies are not making it any better. The silky-smooth public relations machine even had the cheek to manipulate the line of the Government. It managed to change the pledge from “making” tertiary education affordable to “keeping” tertiary education affordable without it having to make any considerable structural change to the system. 
The Government’s knowledge economy policies are premised on the idea that a well-educated society is a public good yet the tertiary education system still reflects the ideology that education is a private good still reflects the myth that education is a commodity. Members need to be aware that the majority of the now $6 billion debt owed to the country by students was borrowed to pay for living costs—that is their rent their power and their food. Those same students are trying desperately hard to train to become doctors nurses and teachers—professions that this country desperately needs. To so burden those people and to continue to burden them is not only wrong but immoral and unethical. 
The current student debt burden is now $1 billion more than this year’s Budget surplus. We should not be surprised when students and graduates ask whether their student loan debt is actually a convenient way for the Government to make the books look good. It would cost the Government approximately $400 million to provide a universal student allowance for every tertiary student in this country. That is a comparatively small sum to provide all students with the living support that they need to obtain a quality tertiary education without racking up a huge debt that will hinder them during the most productive part of their lives as they work hard to secure themselves a future in a very uncertain economic climate. 
Likewise it would cost about $400 million to reduce the fees for tertiary education to a maximum of $1500 per year. But instead of actually using the money that is available to the Government to better enable students to access tertiary education the Government has set up the fee maxima system which simply means that students will be required to pay only an excessively high prohibitive level of fees rather than an exorbitantly high prohibitive level of fees. Labour’s record on student debt and student loans is a total and utter disgrace.
Power Simon: Education (School Boards of Trustees Single Transferable Vote Option) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Power Simon: Education (School Boards of Trustees Single Transferable Vote Option) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:620;Page:15488] 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 The National Party will oppose this bill. Like Mr Maharey I have some sympathies for the campaign that Mr Donald has waged over a long period of time for the single transferable vote (STV). In fact I voted for STV in the referenda when the option was put before the public—I was one of the 14 percent. But I very much have to say from the outset that not one parent from any of the 63 schools in my Rangitikei electorate has walked through one of my three electorate office doors or used email phone or fax to say that he or she really wants to change the electoral system for school boards. I am afraid there is just no interest in the wider school communities for this legislation to proceed. 
I was a little astounded to hear Mr Donald say—and I think I have this right—that if a party chose not to support the bill its opposition was to fair electoral democracy or words to that effect. 
Rod Donald 
: Words to that effect. 
SIMON POWER 
: Well I say to Mr Donald that a couple of things trouble me about that comment and through the chair I would like to address those to him. When the Electoral Options Referenda Bill came before this House to give the public another say on the electoral system the Green Party voted against it. I say to Mr Donald that if he is talking about fair electoral democracy then that concept has to apply well beyond school boards of trustees elections and should also apply to the wider electoral system throughout New Zealand. 
 I also have to say that despite the New Zealand public voting overwhelmingly to look at this system again in the case of reducing the number of MPs to 99 the Greens chose to vote against that particular move at the select committee. So all that we in the National Party ask for is a thread of consistency from the Green Party on matters of electoral reform. When the Green Party co-leader stands in the House and says that opposition to this bill is opposition to fair electoral democracy I am afraid I have to say to him that he needs to go back and look at his party’s voting records when it comes to issues of electoral reform. That party has not listened to the public when they have given very clear messages about their expectations on electoral reform. 
I for one truly believe that Mr Donald’s intentions in respect of this legislation are pure. He has never made any secret of the fact that he and his colleagues feel very strongly about the single transferable vote as an electoral option. As I said earlier that is the option I voted for during the referenda. 
However I conclude my very short 5 minutes by saying that there is no demand for change whatsoever in the education sector or amongst parents caregivers and those who wish to run for school boards. I have seen no evidence of it in my electorate at all. National will not be supporting this bill in going to its next stage through Parliament.
Vote: Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:16496] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments 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 8; Maori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendments agreed to.
Parker David: Government Superannuation Fund Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee Procedure 
Parker David: Government Superannuation Fund Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:606;Page:3887] 
DAVID PARKER (NZ Labour—Otago) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put.
McCully Murray: Points of Order — Questions for Oral Answer—Deferment 
McCully Murray: Points of Order — Questions for Oral Answer—Deferment 
[Volume:625;Page:20524] 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY (National—East Coast Bays) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The reason I did not take a point of order is that we were already in a point of order and I was intent on waiting for the point to be resolved. But since you have invited me to do so I say that of course I have taken gross offence at the quite defamatory and untrue statement that was made.
Copeland Gordon: Forests Amendment Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Copeland Gordon: Forests Amendment Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:12907] 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 I would like to speak briefly on exactly the same issue—the issue of compensation that is in clause 25 of Part 2 of the bill. Brian Connell has already read it but I will summarise: “No person is entitled to compensation from the Crown in respect of any diminution by reason of the enactment of this Act in … (b) the value of indigenous timber on any specified Maori land; or (c) the value of any specified Maori land.” 
This is a very serious clause to have in legislation coming before this House. It is a breach I think of the Magna Carta and it is obviously a breach of the Treaty of Waitangi—and I will come back to that in a moment. I think it is a crying shame that property rights in New Zealand are not enshrined in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. The House will be aware that I have introduced a member’s bill to enshrine private property rights and full and just compensation provisions into the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. 
No less a figure than Sir Geoffrey Palmer whom some regard as the father of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act has said that it was a mistake not to put those measures into the Act. If ever that had to be verified then surely this clause that we have before us tonight is evidence of that. 
The point that I also want to come back to concerns the Treaty of Waitangi. I thought in fact I know that the Treaty of Waitangi—which we all agree is the founding document of this nation and which people say is a solemn document a covenant etc.—states clearly that we will not deprive Maori of their forests. So how come we can stand here in the House tonight and pass this bill with this clause in it? 
The only reason I can go along with that is because as I mentioned in my second reading speech I have had a letter from the Waimumu Trust which has lodged a claim with the Waitangi Tribunal seeking compensation for the removal without compensation of its property rights and forests. The trust has urged us to vote for this bill so that it can quickly become law because only then it is told will the Waitangi Tribunal hear the trust’s claim. 
So in making those few comments the last I would like to make is that I wish the trust luck with its claim because it does seem to me that we are just repeating some of our sad history when we can on this occasion pass a bill that specifically says “We are taking away your property rights but we intend to pay you no compensation whatsoever.” 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 211 in the name of Hon Pete Hodgson to Part 2 be agreed to. 
Amendment agreed to.
Vote: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:621;Page:17142] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to 
. 
Ayes 19 
Green Party 9; United Future 8; Maori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 101 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Progressive 2. 
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 112 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 302 in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen be agreed to: 
to omit subclauses (2) and (3).
Vote: Third Readings 
Vote: Third Readings 
[Volume:609;Page:6931] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Consumer Guarantees Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 82 
Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 34 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 7. 
Bill read a third time.
Copeland Gordon: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Copeland Gordon: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:610;Page:7909] 
8.  
GORDON COPELAND (Whip—United Future) 
 to the  
Minister for Courts 
: Does he stand by the statement he made during questions for oral answer on 6 August 2003 that “This Government upholds the right of all New Zealanders to have access to justice and have their disputes resolved before the appropriate court.”; if so why? 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister for Courts) 
: 
 Yes because this Government believes that access to justice is important. 
Gordon Copeland 
: If that is the case how is it that much-needed hydroelectricity schemes on rivers and lakes controlled by the Department of Conservation can effectively be vetoed by Government so that no opportunity is given for them to make their case to a court or an arbitrator? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: Parliament itself will have determined that the Department of Conservation has powers over certain parts of New Zealand in relation to those areas that have natural or historic significance to New Zealand. It is because of that uniqueness and its significance that those areas are deemed to be different from other parts of New Zealand and it is therefore appropriate that we have a different system. I should also note that decisions made by the Minister of Conservation in that area are reviewable in a court. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: In the light of the Minister’s assurance that the rights of all New Zealanders to access and justice are paramount do they extend to the rights of New Zealanders to plead their cases before the courts with regard to access to foreshore and seabed? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: The matter of foreshore and seabed claims has been put before the court and will be subject to due process. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Will the Minister advocate a review of the Conservation Act to his Cabinet colleagues to ensure that all New Zealanders including those wanting to build those much-needed hydro schemes have access to transparent and open hearings by courts or arbitrators without having to appeal a decision by a Minister? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: The member has two courses of action in that regard. Firstly he can take the matter up directly with the Minister of Conservation to see whether the Minister will sponsor a change in legislation; or secondly the member can submit to this Parliament a member’s bill seeking to change Parliament’s view on how it should govern areas of New Zealand that are deemed to have natural and historic significance for New Zealand.
Hughes Darren: Tariff (New Zealand - Thailand Closer Economic Partnership) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Hughes Darren: Tariff (New Zealand - Thailand Closer Economic Partnership) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:21408] 
DARREN HUGHES (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Collins Judith: Points of Order — Replies to Written Questions—Timeliness 
Collins Judith: Points of Order — Replies to Written Questions—Timeliness 
[Volume:625;Page:19752] 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I seek your assistance in relation to Standing Order 366(4). Ninety overdue answers to written questions are due in from the Associate Minister of Social Development and Employment the Hon Rick Barker. Fifty-odd of those questions relate to fraud within the department and benefit fraud and we have had no reply to 90 of them. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the member please write to me about that matter so I can deal with it.
Peters Winston: Points of Order — Foreshore and Seabed—Media Briefing by Government 
Peters Winston: Points of Order — Foreshore and Seabed—Media Briefing by Government 
[Volume:616;Page:12367] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I think most members have some sympathy for Mr Prebble’s complaint excepting that it comes with a thoroughly bad precedent in his case as we well know. A good example was on 6 June 1989 when the BNZ was sold to Fay Richwhite in what was claimed by his now coalition partner to be a sweetheart deal. [ 
Interruption 
] Thirty percent was sold. Does he not remember? Thirty percent was sold under what was called a sweetheart deal with no announcement to Parliament whatsoever. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is an interesting piece of information but it does not actually add anything. I think I have just about had enough on this particular matter but Mr Brownlee wants to raise a point of order.
Brown Peter: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Question No. 5 to Minister Questions to Members 
Brown Peter: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Question No. 5 to Minister Questions to Members 
[Volume:607;Page:4969] 
8.  
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Noting that Tranz Rail’s share price has dived which could lead to it being bought and sold piecemeal is he contemplating ensuring the rail network survives as one entity; if not why not? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 The Government’s interest is in rail contributing to its overall land transport strategy. Unified ownership of the present assets is not essential to that objective. 
Peter Brown 
: Does that answer mean the Minister would be quite happy if part of the rail was sold off here and part sold off there and that it ended up in multiple ownership? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Yes. 
John Key 
: What instructions has the Minister issued to Treasury regarding the many secret meetings it has held in recent months with Tranz Rail’s management and can he confirm the reasons that all proposals to spend the $30 million allocated to Transfund in the alternatives to roading scheme 
have indeed been stonewalled by him to ensure Cabinet had the resources to buy back the tracks once Treasury reports back to him in a month? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: On the latter part no. On the former part in fact very few meetings were held with Tranz Rail in recent months. 
Peter Brown 
: Is the Minister aware there are planned meetings between senior Ministers and union officials in the near future to discuss some of the concerns about Tranz Rail being sold piecemeal; if so what reassurances will the Ministers give to those union officials? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No I am not aware as a relatively senior Minister that these meetings are to be held. But I point out to the member that there is absolutely no reason for example that one company should not own the freight operation and another company own the urban passenger operation. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Given the widespread support for a strong national rail network why has the Government not sought to purchase Tranz Rail from institutional shareholders and if necessary obtaining an exemption from the Takeovers Code as it legally can in order to avoid driving up the share price? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: As I said in a speech at the weekend it can be no part of the Government’s objective to prop up the asset values of any private company particularly one that is the beneficiary of a self-privatisation deal.
Vote: Urgency 
Vote: Urgency 
[Volume:621;Page:16930] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That urgency be accorded. 
Ayes 66 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Progressive 2. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand National 27; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Maori Party 1. 
Motion agreed to.