edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Mark Ron: Land Transport (Unauthorised Street and Drag Racing) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Mark Ron: Land Transport (Unauthorised Street and Drag Racing) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:607;Page:4588] 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I think probably one of the things that brings issues of disorder to a head is when members feel somewhat aggrieved that the debate has been truncated. We are in the Committee stage and have already forgone the opportunity to debate this bill clause by clause. There is considerable dissent within the Committee amongst the parties. New material is being raised consistently. Nothing in the debate has been repetitive. For the record and for good order maintenance and discipline could you tell the Committee precisely how long we have spent on the Committee stage of Part 2 at this point in time. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the honourable member and refer him to Standing Order 139.
Hartley Ann: Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Deletion Bill — First Reading 
Hartley Ann: Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Deletion Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:21182] 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: No I am stopping the member. I have ruled correctly and I have taken advice from the Clerk. The member cannot continue to speak about that. It is a matter of privilege and that is the end of the matter. That is the ruling.
Ogilvy Bernie: Tariff (New Zealand - Thailand Closer Economic Partnership) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Ogilvy Bernie: Tariff (New Zealand - Thailand Closer Economic Partnership) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:21413] 
BERNIE OGILVY (United Future) 
: 
 I have just become aware that on the closure motion I wrongly voted nine votes on behalf of United Future. It should have been eight. I seek leave to correct that. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Leave is sought to correct that. Is there any objection? There is not.
Mackey Moana: Medicines (Specified Biotechnical Procedures)  Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Mackey Moana: Medicines (Specified Biotechnical Procedures)  Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:625;Page:20604] 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
te Heuheu Georgina: Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi Claims Settlement Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
te Heuheu Georgina: Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi Claims Settlement Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:627;Page:21881] 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) 
: 
 I feel bound to stand up and take a call simply because it looks like the Minister in the chair the Hon Mita Ririnui is not going to respond to the question that the Hon Richard Prebble quite rightly put. On the face of it this bill does not include adopted children or whangai whereas during the select committee process the officials from the Office of Treaty Settlements were pretty adamant that they are included. So there is a real issue raised here. 
It may be that my colleague Gerry Brownlee and I have raised the issue incorrectly. Maybe the Hon Richard Prebble’s view is right because it seems that adopted children are not included in the provisions in the bill. The issue arose in the Maori Affairs Committee because for the iwi Nga Rauru Kitahi claimants I understand this was a key negotiation issue. They requested that presumably their settlement bill override the Adoption Act. I am not sure whether that is correct; maybe the Office of Treaty Settlement officials can give some advice to the Minister on it. 
So at the iwi’s request it became a live issue. They seemed to agree with the point that Gerry Brownlee and I have raised. It seems absolutely illogical to us that on the one hand the bill sets out those who benefit on the basis of blood lines and descent but that on the other hand it also provides that someone who has no blood connection or whakapapa that links to Nga Rauru Kitahi either through any one of the hapu or through the eponymous ancestor can still participate. 
So this is a live issue I say to the Minister. We thought we had some clarity on it in the select committee but on the basis of the matters raised by the Hon Richard Prebble I myself am confused. I think it is very important that someone clarify the situation of adopted children because the issue will arise again. If adopted children are not specifically included in the settlement Act some tribes will exclude them in the future anyway despite the Adoption Act. Given the words “despite any other enactment” the tribe would be quite within its rights to do so. The issue will come up again. It seemed clear in the select committee but it is not clear now. 
I ask the Minister to take a call and give us some clarity on the matter otherwise we will be back in the House dealing with future settlement bills—although we may not be because it is an issue we will get some clarity on when we are in Government in a few weeks’ time. The issue of who is to benefit is complex and serious. As my colleague Gerry Brownlee says it may become the subject of further claims down the line so it is very important that we get some clarification now as to whether adoptees are included.
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Urgent Question 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Urgent Question 
[Sitting date: 19 June 2003. Volume:609;Page:6432. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (NZ National—Ilam) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is my understanding that an urgent question was lodged by the National Party. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Yes there was. It was ruled not to be an urgent question. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I am sorry. I missed that. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It has been ruled out as an urgent question. That is the end of the matter. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I ask for some clarity for the future. The first point is that this decision was brought down by the court at 12.30 today. Effectively the court ruled that Maori do have a right to claim ownership of foreshores etc. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Please be seated. This was a private communication from the member to me. I said no to the urgent question. There is no argument on that issue at all. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek leave for a further question on the matter of the Court of Appeal's decision to grant usage of foreshore— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to ask that question. Is there any objection? There is.
Vote: Commission for the Family Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Commission for the Family Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:617;Page:13118] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 13 
New Zealand First 13. 
Noes 99 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 22; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Motion not agreed to.
McNair Craig: Offices of Parliament—Appointment of Auditors 
McNair Craig: Offices of Parliament—Appointment of Auditors 
[Volume:622;Page:17664] 
CRAIG McNAIR (NZ First) 
: 
 I speak on behalf of New Zealand First in support of this Government notice of motion which states: “That pursuant to section 38(1) of the Public Audit Act 2001 this House appoint for the financial years ending on 30 June 2005 30 June 2006 and 30 June 2007 CST Nexia Audit of Auckland as auditor of the financial statements accounts and other information of the Controller and Auditor-General …”. I confirm the words of Lindsay Tisch who spoke before me by saying that we are happy to support the motion. CST Nexia Audit has done a good job in the last 3 years and we look forward to it doing a good job in the next 3 years. As a Parliament we need to ensure that there is total integrity in the system and an absolute willingness by all parties to make sure that this is a transparent and good process so that at the end of the day all New Zealanders are served well and with the utmost honesty and integrity. We do support this notice of motion and the reappointment of the auditor. 
Motion agreed to.
Vote: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:621;Page:17144] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 74 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 46 
New Zealand National 27; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8; Maori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendments agreed to.
Carter John: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Transitional Provisions and Controls) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee  
Carter John: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Transitional Provisions and Controls) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee  
[Volume:616;Page:11761] 
JOHN CARTER (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I want to raise with you a matter of procedure. I did not interrupt the vote because it was not appropriate to do so but just as you were taking the closure motion my colleague Dr Nick Smith sought a point of order. I was concerned that it took some time before his point of order was recognised. Every member in this Chamber has a right at any stage with one or two exceptions as we might be going through a procedural matter to raise a point of order. It may be that finally the Chair will decide that it was not a legitimate point of order but of course that cannot be judged until after the point of order is taken. 
I want your assurance that when a member—particularly from this side—raises a point of order it will be recognised immediately and dealt with appropriately in whatever way the Chair decides. It is not appropriate for the point of order to be refused by the Chair initially because the Chair may think it would do something to prejudge the procedure. I just want an assurance that points of order will be taken and recognised because it is important that that is a common part of our practice in this Chamber. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I acknowledge the point that Mr Carter is making.
Chadwick Steve: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) — Third Reading 
Chadwick Steve: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) — Third Reading 
[Volume:619;Page:15273] 
STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) 
: 
 I rise to take just a short call. It has been a very interesting evening to observe as we head into the third reading of this Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3). The Opposition has accused the Greens of going soft and voting with the Government. I think the Greens have shown that they have minds of their own that are rather intelligent because they are working with this Government which has worked with the sector. We have actually worked with the industry—the commercial and recreational fishers of this country. It has been an interesting phenomenon to see the Opposition spokesman for fisheries completely outstripped and outspoken by David Carter on this issue. David Carter who has been having a spat with Winston Peters over scampi certainly has not helped the New Zealand First - National Party relationship. That has been immeasurably damaging. I think National needs to look at itself over this. Tonight I am pleased to support this bill. It shows that this Government yet again is providing leadership to the industry. I will be thrilled when this bill is passed tonight.
Parker David: Holidays Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Parker David: Holidays Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:614;Page:10514] 
DAVID PARKER (Labour—Otago) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Benson-Pope David: Appropriation (2003/04 Estimates) Bill — Third Reading Imprest Supply Debate 
Benson-Pope David: Appropriation (2003/04 Estimates) Bill — Third Reading Imprest Supply Debate 
[Volume:610;Page:7674] 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (Senior Whip—NZ Labour) 
: 
 If I could address the last point first. The reference was not to Mr Prebble the leader of the ACT party but to the member of the party who broke the agreement made on the previous occasion his deputy Ken Shirley. 
If I could speak about the particulars of this matter. What is relevant is the fact that after the dispute and the behaviour of the ACT member on the previous occasion which my colleague Mr Donald referred to there was a request made at the Business Committee 2 weeks ago for me to bring to the committee a proposed roster for the speeches in this debate. I prepared this roster using the normal proportional allocation and distributed it at the committee meeting yesterday. With one change made at the request of the ACT party that roster is the one you see before you. The request made at that meeting by the ACT representative Dr Newman was to move speech No. 20 which you will see is a Labour 5-minute call into that position and shift the other call so that the ACT member who had previously been in the No. 20 position got call No. 17 of 5-minutes duration and was therefore in no danger of losing speaking time because of exactly the slippage that is now occurring. There was no disagreement about any other matter of the roster. It was agreed unanimously by all whips present and others furthermore so that we would not have the sort of dispute that has now occurred for the second consecutive time on a matter like this. I find it totally unacceptable. The consequences are quite obvious. If we cannot have an agreement that is made unanimously—where ACT has indeed been accommodated at the Business Committee the day before—held to then that is an entirely unacceptable position.
Tabling of Documents — Mohammed Saidi 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Tabling of Documents — Mohammed Saidi 
[Sitting date: 15 October 2003. Volume:612;Page:9207. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Tabling of Documents 
Mohammed Saidi 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I seek leave to table documentation supporting my speech during the general debate today 
Documents by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Debate resumed.
Pettis Jill: Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill — In Committee 
Pettis Jill: Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17904] 
JILL PETTIS (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Gallagher Martin: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Gallagher Martin: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:623;Page:18457] 
4.  
MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: Does the  
Annual Update of Forecasts of the Prison Population 
 confirm that new sentencing laws and better policing have been effective against serial offenders? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 Yes. Notwithstanding a fall in current crime rates to the lowest levels in 21 years the latest prison forecasts indicate that because of improved crime resolution rates by police and tougher sentences by courts the prison population will increase by 1000 or 15 percent over the next 5 years. The forecasts show that recidivist offenders are now more likely to be convicted taken off the streets and kept off the streets. 
Martin Gallagher 
: What are the main drivers of the increasing prison population? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: There are five set out in the forecasts. Firstly better-resourced police are resolving a much higher percentage of crimes resulting in more convictions and therefore more sentences; secondly the Sentencing Act has increased prison sentences for the worst and highest-risk offenders; thirdly more offenders are getting preventive detention; fourthly automatic release at two-thirds of the sentence allowed under the last Government has been abolished and the Parole Board is now more likely to decline applications; and lastly the Bail Act is tougher and more high-risk defendants are now being remanded in custody after this Government’s new Bail Act was introduced.
Roy Heather: Identity (Citizenship and Travel Documents) Bill — First Reading 
Roy Heather: Identity (Citizenship and Travel Documents) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:618;Page:14503] 
HEATHER ROY (ACT) 
: 
 I rise to speak to this bill on behalf of the ACT party. ACT New Zealand will be supporting this bill’s referral to the select committee but would like to voice various concerns we have. I will not spend a lot of time on many of those as they have been already articulated by the National Party member and by Mr Brown of New Zealand First.
Vote: Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:20063] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 90 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 27 
New Zealand National 27. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to.
Cullen Michael: Debate on Crown Entities Public Organisations and State Enterprises — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Cullen Michael: Debate on Crown Entities Public Organisations and State Enterprises — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:617;Page:13235] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 The Government is not in charge of select committees—select committees are. It is up to them. If select committees fail to report their matters then that can be used as a device to avoid any debate on the performance of State-owned enterprises and Crown entities in the future. The member should always remember the rule of unintended consequences in these matters. I have seen Governments use precisely these kinds of rulings in the past to avoid debate. This Government is in fact making sure that there will be debate.
Hunt Jonathan: Points of Order — Dominion Post Article 
Hunt Jonathan: Points of Order — Dominion Post Article 
[Volume:612;Page:9250] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I can certainly give that assurance to the member. [ 
Interruption 
] No I did not; I am certain I did not.
Vote: Television New Zealand Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Television New Zealand Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:606;Page:3828] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
Noes 60 
Amendment not agreed to. 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Green Party 8. 
Labour 52; United Future 8. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 57 in the name of the Hon Steve Maharey to Part 5 be agreed to.
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
[Volume:610;Page:7505] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 At this stage I cannot give any such indication. It depends on matters that are not totally within my control.
Hunt Jonathan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Hunt Jonathan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:610;Page:7135] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I want to rule on this now. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I want to rule on this now. The member can raise it at another point. Both the Prime Minister and the Associate Minister were quoted as making the statement. It is up to the Government who answers the question. The rulings go back to 1962 which illustrates that there have always been disputes about transfers.
Robertson H V Ross: Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Bill — Procedure In Committee 
Robertson H V Ross: Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Bill — Procedure In Committee 
[Volume:623;Page:18910] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I have listened with interest to all the points that have been made. To Dr Cullen I say that the member is correct. The English and the Maori parts of the report are not translations of each other. Both commentaries are part of the report as adopted by the Maori Affairs Committee. If the member has a problem with the text that is a criticism of the committee. The member is entitled to criticise the committee but this matter is not a point of order. It is not the same as the point that was raised last week. On that occasion the bill contained text in two languages. This time the matter the member is raising concerns a select committee report.
Smith Nick: Resource Management and Electricity Legislation Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Smith Nick: Resource Management and Electricity Legislation Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:627;Page:22280] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It concerns the last point you made. The Standing Order is very clear. It does not say “may” and I am not asking the Speaker or the Clerk’s Office to make a determination as to whether it is a proper interpretation. What it states is: “must have an explanatory note that states the policy …”. That is what the Standing Order states. How can an explanatory note that simply states: “to give effect to new policy” possibly comply with a requirement that it state the policy? Where in that explanatory note is the statement of the policy?
Cunliffe David: Taxation (Annual Rates Venture Capital and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — In Committee 
Cunliffe David: Taxation (Annual Rates Venture Capital and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:16511] 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Associate Minister of Revenue) 
: 
 I want to take the opportunity to outline some of the key provisions of Part 2 for the assistance of the Committee. The first key provision is to remove a tax obstacle to unlisted New Zealand companies gaining access to private foreign equity including venture capital. It does so by introducing venture capital rules that are the same as in Australia thereby equating the tax treatment between the two countries. In Part 2 also is a measure to help small businesses. It introduces a tax discount for self-employed people who make voluntary payments in their first year of business. We all know that if they do not make such payments as they are allowed not to in their second year they tend to be hit with a tax crunch so the Government is offering a discount to help smooth the tax payments of small businesses across their first 2 years. 
Part 2 also allows—and this is another taxpayer friendly provision—the costs associated with patent and resource management consent applications that are withdrawn or not granted to be tax deductible. Another taxpayer friendly provision in this part is to make the tax treatment of replacement planting of fruit trees more flexible to encourage the use of the most commercially desirable varieties. Part 2 also closes an egregious loophole involving the sale and leaseback of intangibles such as trademarks and newspaper mastheads. Finally it deals with some tax issues arising out of the recent severe flooding to allow farmers to file late tax returns once the damage has been recorded and is in order. 
Finally I want to contrast the points made by Mr Key in relation to the OECD tax rates. I draw his attention to the fact that as of 2001 which to my knowledge is the last fully complete comparative tax analysis by the OECD New Zealand’s corporate tax rate at 33 cents differed only very slightly from the OECD average of 32.9 cents thereby showing that as of that date New Zealand’s corporate tax rate was smack on the OECD average. 
What we see is the Government once again moving forward a range of measures that are designed to make tax easier to pay and to simplify the system and that is the kind of work that the country expects of a good Government. It is yet more evidence that that is what the country has.
Mark Ron: Customs and Excise (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Mark Ron: Customs and Excise (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:608;Page:5389] 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. The member knows that.
Locke Keith: Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Locke Keith: Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:615;Page:11259] 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I support that point of order but I was not in the Committee just before 6 p.m. so I am not sure why my amendment was ruled out of order. I am not sure whether that was justified but I would be interested to hear your ruling on Mr Mapp's point and also to hear why my amendment was ruled out.
Brown Peter: Motions — Bali Bombing—Second Anniversary 
Brown Peter: Motions — Bali Bombing—Second Anniversary 
[Volume:620;Page:15997] 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 Today 2 years ago there was a dreadful event—a dreadful event for New Zealand a dreadful event for Australia in particular and a dreadful event for the world. Young people do not go on holiday to be subjected to acts of terror and terrorism; they go on holiday to enjoy themselves and to have some fun in their youth. It was almost beyond belief that they were blown apart by terrorist action. On a worldwide scale nation by nation religion by religion that is simply not acceptable. That message must be strongly delivered and finally accepted by all. As a result of the Bali bombing many families are traumatised and are likely to be so for the rest of their lives. We must ensure that the people who died in Bali did not die in vain. As a small nation our contribution towards combating terrorism although it might be limited must be significant and positive. We must send a strong message. We must also be vigilant. New Zealand First supports the motion.
Vote: Sentencing (Community Sentencing to Fit the Crime) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Sentencing (Community Sentencing to Fit the Crime) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:624;Page:19285] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Sentencing (Community Sentencing to Fit the Crime) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 63 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Motion not agreed to.
Barker Rick: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Procedure Referral to Health Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled  Speaker Recalled In Committee Procedure 
Barker Rick: 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:9971] 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister for Courts) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: We have had 38 speakers and there have been eight closure motions. I will take one last speaker.
Animal Products (Dairy Products and Other Matters) Bill — Second Reading 
Animal Products (Dairy Products and Other Matters) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:623;Page:18861] 
Animal Products (Dairy Products and Other Matters) Bill 
Second Reading 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister for Food Safety) 
: 
 I move  
That the Animal Products (Dairy Products and Other Matters) Bill be now read a second time 
. The bill provides for the regulation of the dairy industry under the Animal Products Act of 1999 and repeals the Dairy Industry Act of 1952. The safety and trade of dairy products are matters that currently come under the Dairy Industry Act but that Act does not provide an adequate legislative framework for ensuring product safety outcomes or an adequate legislative framework to facilitate trade in a risk-based management environment. The prescriptive and inflexible style of the Dairy Industry Act is inconsistent with the enabling style of legislation that is being used in modern risk-based legislation such as the Animal Products Act. 
There are two overarching public policy objectives for the bill: to manage the risk to human and animal health from the consumption and use of dairy products and to facilitate the entry of dairy products to overseas markets. The food safety administration in New Zealand is moving towards an environment based on the principles of food safety risk management in line with international trends. The bill will allow the dairy industry to operate in a risk-management environment and will provide greater consistency for the rest of the food industry. The bill also aims to facilitate the entry of dairy products to overseas markets by providing the controls and mechanisms needed for market access and the giving of official assurances. 
The bill was referred to the Primary Production Committee on 29 June 2004. Submissions closed on 23 August 2004 and the bill was reported back to the House in September. This bill is supported by all parties in this Parliament. It is necessary to have this bill passed so that we can ensure that the new contracts and initiatives are in place by the beginning of the season. It is highly desirable to have this legal framework in place to make it easier for the dairy industry to accommodate new technologies and processing techniques. 
I commend this bill to the House and I thank the members of the select committee who looked at it in detail and reported it back with no change. 
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
: 
 The National Party will be supporting this bill. We appreciated being able to participate in the select committee process and to ask the intelligent questions at the committee. Labour members—who do not have any constituent MPs who represent rural or provincial New Zealand—were unaware of the issues facing the dairy industry. National members were able to talk to people in the dairy industry about what is familiar to us and what is familiar to them as an industry. 
Debate interrupted.
Alexander Marc: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Alexander Marc: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:423;Page:18529] 
MARC ALEXANDER (United Future) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Without belabouring the point I now seek your guidance as to why when a question is directed to a particular Minister and is clearly in his or her area of responsibility it can somehow at the Government’s whim be redirected to another Minister simply because we may actually end up with a better answer.
Hunt Jonathan: Urgent Debates Declined — Tariff Reductions Transmission Gully Crimes Act 
Hunt Jonathan: Urgent Debates Declined — Tariff Reductions Transmission Gully Crimes Act 
[Volume:612;Page:8886] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have received a number of applications for debates under Standing Order 376. Rod Donald seeks to debate the Government’s decision to reduce the level of tariffs on imported goods. The decision is a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility but I cannot regard a decision on the level of tariffs post-2005 as requiring the immediate attention of the House by way of an urgent debate.
Prebble Richard: Points of Order — Questions for Oral Answer—Deferment 
Prebble Richard: Points of Order — Questions for Oral Answer—Deferment 
[Volume:625;Page:20524] 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I hope I can assist the Chair. Mr Mallard made some statements that frankly if he had made them about me I would not have remained quiet about regardless of whether I was supposed to. I will remind you of what he said. I hope Mr McCully does not mind me repeating the defamation. Mr Mallard said that Mr McCully had arranged for half a million dollars to go to a friend. That is gross corruption. The statement is completely out of order. Although the Speaker listens to points of order a Speaker would normally intervene at that point and tell a member that his or her statement is—it is right off the scale actually. That statement happens not to be true and it should not have been said. I am stunned that Mr McCully and his colleagues took it so meekly. Then one of them was told because he had sort of grunted that he would be thrown out. If Mr Brownlee is thrown out that is just an invitation for Mr Mallard who is Parliament’s worst offender to get up on points of order and accuse people of corruption. He said that half a million dollars was given to a friend. That is not true and we are supposed to take it. I say to you Madam Speaker that the House has not asked you to do that. The House has asked you to uphold the rules. If you are to throw Mr Brownlee out then I trust that you will name Mr Mallard and suspend him from the House.
Vote: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:15438] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Noes 71 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of MetiriaTurei to clause 15 be agreed to: 
to omit this clause.
Gosche Mark: Taxation (Base Maintenance and MiscellaneousProvisions) Bill — First Reading 
Gosche Mark: Taxation (Base Maintenance and MiscellaneousProvisions) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:622;Page:18065] 
Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie) 
: 
 It is probably obvious to anybody who has managed to listen to the speeches this morning that it is Friday in the week before Christmas and some strange speeches have been made as a result. 
We are dealing with a bill that seeks to make the taxation system fair and just and recognises the fact when that the profits of foreign-owned banks go up their tax should not come down. But New Zealand First is utterly opposed to that. The party that says it is here for all New Zealanders says that the tax paid by foreign-owned banks should come down when their profits go up. We do not happen to agree with that and that is why we have brought in this bill. We have included in the bill measures that place restrictions on the Inland Revenue Department but the ACT party says that is terrible. I am not quite sure how that fits in with its liberal policies. Maybe it is just too early in the morning for those members to have read the bill. 
I think that most New Zealanders will be pleased that this Government is reducing compliance costs to business and protecting the revenue base. I note that John Key is fully supportive of this bill but David Carter has not talked to him this morning to find out what the line is. I can tell him that on 16 November John Key said that National was going to support this bill because it is a sensible measure. It is just too late in the year for the Opposition to be thinking at all let alone thinking straight. I utterly support the bill as every right-thinking New Zealander would.
Cosgrove Clayton: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Cosgrove Clayton: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:619;Page:14677] 
12.  
CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
 to the  
Minister for Racing 
: How has the Government contributed to ensuring the New Zealand racing industry can look forward to a prosperous future? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister for Racing) 
: 
 This Government has worked hard to ensure that the racing industry has a modern statutory framework that allows racing to control its own destiny. The new Racing Act has been in force for a year and the Government has appointed a strong capable New Zealand Racing Board that has already laid the foundations for revitalising New Zealand racing. 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: What has the New Zealand Racing Board achieved in its first year in office and what has been the industry’s response? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: The board has laid the foundations for growth. It has commissioned comprehensive research that will underpin various strategies for growing the industry. The board has set itself a target of increasing its financial return to racing from $79 million to $100 million per annum.
Vote: Electricity and Gas Industries Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Electricity and Gas Industries Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:15852] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 3 be agreed to. 
Ayes 84 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 36 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Part 3 agreed to.
Simich Clem: Families Commission Bill — Second Reading 
Simich Clem: Families Commission Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:613;Page:10217] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I know what was said and it was exactly as Mr Jones has relayed it. In normal circumstances any suggestion that there has been blackmail is out of order. That was a reference to “like” blackmail. 
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN 
: As a result of the payback to United Future we witnessed in the select committee what can only be described as a hissy fit because the select committee did not have a majority voting for the Families Commission. I have to say that the Minister misrepresented that process. United Future almost certainly will misrepresent the process when it gets to speak but the point is that if a committee does not have a majority on the changes that the committee has made to the bill then the bill is simply discharged back to the House and the Government will put all those changes through in a Supplementary Order Paper that the Minister promises will be tabled tomorrow. If that Minister were on the ball and United Future were on the ball it should be on the Table tonight. United Future members talk about the fact that our committee did not put a report back to Parliament. Where is the Supplementary Order Paper? Why is it not here tonight? 
Debate interrupted.
Eckhoff Gerrard: Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Eckhoff Gerrard: Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:614;Page:10615] 
GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT) 
: 
 As the only member from Otago who is prepared to speak on this bill I seek leave of the House to take just a 5-minute call. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Leave has been sought by the member. Is there any objection to that? There appears to be.
Gallagher Martin: Land Transport Management Bill — Third Reading 
Gallagher Martin: Land Transport Management Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:613;Page:9805] 
MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) 
: 
 That speech by the new No. 13 which is unlucky for some and unlucky for that thirteenth-ranked member was full of negativity. The difference between the member Roger Sowry and this side and this Minister of Transport is that National did nothing in its 9 years in Government. I was in local government in Hamilton and was deputy mayor of my city and National did diddly-squat. It did nothing. 
In the time I have let me pay strong congratulations to the former Minister of Transport the Hon Mark Gosche for the work he did on this bill. I also congratulate the previous chair of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee Helen Duncan and thank her and her team for the great work they did. For the first time in a long time under the good Minister Paul Swain we will give this country an integrated long-term approach to land transport funding and management. What a pleasure it is to be a member of a Government that is actually doing something as against that remnant of an Opposition whose members did nothing in 9 long years in Government. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I call the honourable member Brent Catchpole.
Pettis Jill: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Procedure Referral to Health Committee Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Pettis Jill: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Procedure Referral to Health Committee Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:610;Page:7979] 
JILL PETTIS (Junior Whip—NZ Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Coddington Deborah: Secondhand Dealers and Pawnbrokers Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Coddington Deborah: Secondhand Dealers and Pawnbrokers Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:618;Page:14276] 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT) 
: 
 I rise to speak briefly on behalf of the ACT party. We support this legislation. It is good to see a tidy-up of old legislation with a new piece that is a mechanical sensible and practical. In this sort of consumer legislation we do not have to put up with the usual old garbage that tries to go down the path of a balance of power between the consumer and the vendor as we saw in the consumer credit legislation. The intent of the bill is to make it more difficult for criminals to dispose of stolen goods. The bill does balance the issues there because as Ron Mark said the majority of second-hand dealers are honourable and honest people but there are the car-boot sales in the parking lot. 
The other issue that should be commended in this bill is that the ID requirements are not too onerous. For instance the bill actually allows the second-hand dealer to confirm identification by personal knowledge. That is if the client is already known to the dealer that is enough to comply with the legislation. The dealer does not have to get the client to produce a photo ID every single time he or she buys goods. 
There is a huge amount of “buyer beware” in this area of consumer transactions. I do not think that we should ever go down the path where we over-regulate and people do not take responsibility for their own actions. That said we will never totally eradicate the people who say “I bought it off a guy in a pub.” or “It fell off the back of a truck.” But as I said the ACT party supports this legislation and we will be voting in favour of it.
Cullen Michael: Business of Select Committees — Reporting Dates 
Cullen Michael: Business of Select Committees — Reporting Dates 
[Volume:616;Page:11907] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek leave for the time by which the Primary Production Committee must finally report the 2002-03 financial review of AgriQuality Ltd to be extended to 10 May 2004. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There appears to be none.
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
[Volume:615;Page:11365] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week in the House priority will be given to the third reading of the Health (National Cervical Screening Programme) Amendment Bill and further progress on the Civil Aviation Amendment Bill and the Crimes and Misconduct (Overseas Operations) Bill. Further business will depend on what bills are reported back by Monday from the select committees. Wednesday is a members’ day and it is expected that the Budget Policy Statement debate will be held on this day instead of the general debate. This is a 2-hour debate.
Laban Luamanuvao Winnie: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
Laban Luamanuvao Winnie: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
[Volume:608;Page:5569] 
LUAMANUVAO WINNIE LABAN (NZ Labour—Mana) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Eckhoff Gerrard: Wine Makers Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Eckhoff Gerrard: Wine Makers Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:607;Page:4364] 
GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT NZ) 
: 
 The commencement clause is important. I always seem to be following Mr Key in these debates and as he says it is important for winegrowers to understand exactly when this whole process is taking place. Clause 2 states: “This Act comes into force on the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent.” When is that? Which date is that—in which month and year? That clause is very open-ended. Can anyone in this House recall writing a contract for example that was so open-ended as to come into force sometime? Is that clause not an example of bad governance? 
I think that the Government really needs to take a hard look at itself and to put some defined parameters around the commencement date of bills—not just this bill but any other bill that comes before the House—to give a bit of certainty on this issue. Gracious me that is what industry in New Zealand—indeed anywhere else for that matter but especially in New Zealand—is looking for these days. Industry is looking for a little certainty surrounding a very simple thing like a commencement date. If the Government cannot find an appropriate commencement date that would indicate to me that the management and control of government in this country is not what it should be. Perhaps we have known that for 3-and-a-bit years now. 
Nevertheless the commencement date of any legislation is very important to those specifically concerned with the particular industry it deals with. Quite frankly the open-ended date in this bill is not appropriate and it is something that I believe the Government needs to address. But we would hope for the sake of the wine industry that this legislation will commence in the not too distant future. 
Clause 2 agreed to.
Franks Stephen: Appointments — Ombudsman—Beverley Wakem 
Franks Stephen: Appointments — Ombudsman—Beverley Wakem 
[Volume:622;Page:17663] 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 For the ACT party I want to add our congratulations on this appointment. I was in Radio New Zealand’s building last night and looking along the walls I saw a photo of a very young-looking woman who must have been—I will not say surprisingly—an extraordinarily youthful interruption to the normal line of chief executives of Radio New Zealand. 
I came across Ms Wakem again when she had left the comforting arms of the State and had gone to Wrightson in I think a human resources role but it ended up being a lot more than that and I believe she did an extraordinary job there under trying circumstances. I certainly appreciated the wisdom that she offered and the balance that she was able to bring to a position that was quite tough at that time. The panel I am sure was delighted to have someone of her calibre as a candidate for this job. 
 I endorse the concern that when there is no one with legal training in a position such as this there may be something lost from the Office of the Ombudsmen. I spent 2 years as an investigating officer in the Office of the Ombudsmen. I started under Sir George Laking who I think may have had a law degree but certainly had never practised as a lawyer. I believe that he performed in a way that built on the credit that the office had had from the time of Sir Guy Powles. So I am not overly concerned about the absence of a legal qualification but endorse the noting of it for future reference. 
We are very pleased to be able to add our voice to those welcoming this new parliamentary commissioner to our service.