edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Williamson Maurice: Aviation Security Legislation Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Williamson Maurice: Aviation Security Legislation Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 11 September 2007. Volume:642;Page:11744. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) 
: 
 It has often been said in the history of speech-making that a good speech is a short speech so this will be one of the best speeches that has ever been made because it will be bloody short. All I can say is that the National Opposition supports this bill. We disagree with Mr Locke. Yes a gun being shot within a cabin may actually damage some hydraulics and it may put a hole in the fuselage. But let me tell members that a bomb from a terrorist does a hell of a lot more damage than a gun from an inflight service officer will ever do. We support this legislation.
Locke Keith: Aviation Security Legislation Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Locke Keith: Aviation Security Legislation Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 11 September 2007. Volume:642;Page:11744. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party is supporting this bill but as members who listened to the first and second reading debates will remember we had a particular objection to the arming of inflight security officers. On the Table is an amendment from myself and the Green Party to omit new section 15B proposed to be inserted by clause 7. New section 15B states: “In-flight security officers may possess carry and use firearms weapons ammunition and other equipment on board certain aircraft in certain circumstances”. The provision goes on to explain under what circumstances those officers will be able to do this on board. Those circumstances are: “if—(a) the officer is on duty; and (b) the aircraft is in flight.” 
We are not objecting to inflight security officers as such—police often have to go on planes for some purpose—but they should not be able to carry guns. The airline pilots— 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: How about Tasers? 
KEITH LOCKE 
: There is a bit of interjection here. Mr Williamson should listen to the airline pilots. They are the people who will be affected if guns are used on planes. It was explained quite clearly that with all the hydraulics all the power and all the bits and pieces on planes that are quite vital for it to keep airborne several thousand feet in the air it would be dangerous for people to be operationally using guns on planes and that is what this new section achieves. 
The Green Party goes along with the pilots and other submitters to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee who would rather this provision were not there. Thank you.
Goudie Sandra: Third Readings — 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Goudie Sandra: Third Readings — 
[Sitting date: 11 September 2007. Volume:642;Page:11741. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 I rise to take a call on the third readings of the bills coming out of the Statutes Amendment Bill. I acknowledge Clayton Cosgrove’s very kind remarks about the chair of the Government Administration Committee and the way in which all parties worked together to assist the process of this legislation. As he said Statutes Amendment bills are omnibus bills and are designed to provide minor technical and non-controversial amendments to legislation. The original bill has been divided into 48 bills. 
We had one or two queries over some aspects of the legislation because with one or two parts in the original bill we were concerned that the amendments were not minor or technical in nature and of course we sought guidance from the officials on that. That is the process that needs to be undertaken and it is the role of the select committee in monitoring the process of Statutes Amendment bills to do that. The Ministry of Justice actually has a role to play in that and it is charged with the responsibility of coordinating the amendments. It cannot give any advice. That is left up to the ministry officials who will seek the committee’s guidance on any queries that it has. 
All in all the legislation went through quite smoothly and National is happy to support it.
Finlayson Christopher: Statutes Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Finlayson Christopher: Statutes Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 11 September 2007. Volume:642;Page:11738. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
: 
 With regard to the Statutes Amendment Bill one could give either an 8-hour speech or a 3-minute speech. 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: Three minutes. 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: I have opted indeed—as my friend Harry Duynhoven said—for the 3-minute speech. In the second reading I addressed some of the provisions that dealt particularly with the question of the appointment of environment commissioners and with various other minor amendments—for example Part 18 which concerns the Family Courts Act. 
The purpose of the Statutes Amendment Bill—as is well known—is to introduce provisions of a very minor nature that tidy up legislation in order to bring various pieces of legislation into line with other legislation and so it is here. This legislation need not detain the Committee at all. It is all fairly sensible stuff. The National Party has no problem with the various parts of the bill with the exception of the particular parts that are referred to in the report from the Government Administration Committee. National supports the legislation. 
Part 1 agreed to.
Goudie Sandra: Statutes Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Goudie Sandra: Statutes Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 11 September 2007. Volume:642;Page:11738. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 I rise to take a brief call on the Statutes Amendment Bill. I want to draw people’s attention to the submission put forward by Chapman Tripp which opposed the amendments to clauses 32 and 33 of the Statutes Amendment Bill. The reason for the opposition is that Chapman Tripp felt that the proposed amendments to the Companies Act were unnecessary and would result in onerous additional compliance costs for amalgamating companies in terms of both time and money. Perhaps the Minister in the chair the Hon Clayton Cosgrove might like to take a call and give us his views on the concerns Chapman Tripp raised about the proposals to change the Companies Act. The Chapman Tripp submission goes on to state that in the Act’s current form a company that is amalgamating with another company must give secured credit or a copy of an amalgamation proposal— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Clauses 3 and 4 only please. 
SANDRA GOUDIE 
: OK clauses 3 and 4 only. Right I shall go to clauses 3 and 4 only—I am not quite sure where we are up to on this bill. [ 
Interruption 
] The Animal Products Act! Well do we know a lot about the Animal Products Act! What is happening with the Animal Products Act? There are huge changes there: “Section 167(1)(ja) is amended by omitting “section 59A” and substituting “section 60”.” That is a hugely significant change to the legislation. 
Steve Chadwick 
: What is it? 
SANDRA GOUDIE 
: Well that is a good question from the member. Perhaps she might like to take a call and answer that very question. Perhaps the Minister might like to answer the question and enlighten the House and the New Zealand public about what those particular clauses actually mean. We have some briefing papers from the officials about all these different clauses. I am sure the Minister has those to hand and can give us a very enlightened précis of the changes to those particular clauses. 
There are of course a number of Acts that are being changed by this legislation and the Animal Products Act is just one of the Acts that is being amended in the Statutes Amendment Bill.
Vote: International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 11 September 2007. Volume:642;Page:11738. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 111 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; ACT New Zealand 2; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 10 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 4. 
Bill read a second time.
Woolerton R Doug: International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Woolerton R Doug: International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 11 September 2007. Volume:642;Page:11735. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First) 
: 
 If this International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill were to be in any way compromising our sovereignty we in New Zealand First would be opposed to it. By and large we do tend to examine “world this” and “world that” things very very closely indeed to make sure they are not doing that. But New Zealand must play its part in the world and I think this bill is completely consistent with the view we have in New Zealand which is that we will not participate in acts of anger or aggression. This bill certainly does not do that but certainly we have a record of punching above our weight when it comes to being listened to internationally. I believe that our respect internationally is high thanks to people—some of whom are in this House—who have participated internationally. 
John Hayes 
: The rugby team. 
R DOUG WOOLERTON 
: I do not know about the rugby team. I think the rugby team might have had a bit of a set-back recently but let us hope not. I think this bill enhances that respect because essentially it is some guarantee for people in terms of helping them to put money into countries that have been through the ravages of war or have been disadvantaged in some way or another. So I think it is completely consistent for us to play a part in that way. Indeed if it were a bill that was locking us into some sort of huge obligation that was open-ended and it was locking us into a raping and pillaging - type regime that was going on—it was just about making money— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: What! 
R DOUG WOOLERTON 
: I mean in a financial sense just so that Mr Cosgrove does not get too excited. It should make sure that we participate as a good citizen of the world. I believe that this bill does that and for that reason New Zealand First is happy to support it.
Swain Paul: International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Swain Paul: International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 11 September 2007. Volume:642;Page:11732. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
 I have always thought that the best speeches Wayne Mapp makes are the short ones. I thought that that was one of his best actually. 
Of course the Labour-led Government supports this legislation. As the previous speaker mentioned it allows us to become a member of the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency. A number of steps have to be taken. We have already signed the convention in September 2005 and after that we were required to pass legislation which hopefully is what we are doing today and we then lodge this with the World Bank. What was not mentioned before is that this Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency is one of the five agencies of the World Bank. It is an important body. The core reason for setting it up was to try to enhance the flow of capital in technology-developing countries for productive purposes by providing investment insurance against what is called sovereign and political risk. In other words it is allowing the private sector to invest in countries with often high political risk and having the opportunity if there is a default to be able to have a sizable world body to negotiate that default on behalf of the individual donor or investor. It is an important agency and it does fit in with New Zealand’s essential goals which are to try to help and promote investment and development in developing nations. 
There is not much more to be said except that it is important to note that although this particular agency is concerned primarily with alleviating poverty it complements New Zealand’s other current provisions for export insurance by providing guarantees for equity payments for New Zealand companies investing in developing countries. In our view it hits a number of targets. It plays our part in trying to ensure that investment is going into developing countries to ensure that they progress and grow and provide jobs and long-term sustainable growth for those economies but recognises risk. It makes sure there is an ability to deal with that if something goes wrong given the political risk of some of these investments although at the same time it is supporting our export sector by providing some form of insurance and giving them some comfort when they make these investments. I wholeheartedly support this bill and recommend that it be passed without too much delay.
Mapp Wayne: International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Mapp Wayne: International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 11 September 2007. Volume:642;Page:11731. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 I will take only a short call on this bill. The reason is that this bill is I think supported by most parties if not all parties in the House. It is worth drawing members’ attention to the fact that 170 countries are party to this convention. They include all of the OECD countries and that probably means some parties are therefore automatically against it. 
It is noteworthy that there is an allocation of shares. For the OECD countries it is 59000 shares and New Zealand’s share of that is 513 shares—very small. We have a small role to play in the agency but it is essentially part of New Zealand’s responsibilities to facilitate international investment particularly in places of political risk which is what this agreement provides for. It provides for the protection of that kind of investment. There is a small risk potential I guess in these situations and New Zealand will have an obligation in relation to that. We calculated in the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee that probably in the region of about $100000 is at risk per year. We felt that was not a major issue. 
I can say to members that this bill excited the attention of the nation to such an extent that I have an unparalleled announcement to make: there were no submissions on it whatsoever. I do not think much more needs to be said about the bill other than to say it is part of the framework of New Zealand being a responsible country and being part of the family of nations. As National has been making quite clear in recent years in foreign affairs issues in particular there is very much a bipartisan approach to these matters. I suggest that this is precisely one of the areas where we would expect that approach to be reflected in the votes in this House. Thank you.
Cosgrove Clayton: Misuse of Drugs (Classification of BZP) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Cosgrove Clayton: Misuse of Drugs (Classification of BZP) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 11 September 2007. Volume:642;Page:11731. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Minister for Building and Construction) 
 on behalf of the  
Hon Jim Anderton (Associate Minister of Health) 
: I move  
That the Misuse of Drugs (Classification of BZP) Amendment Bill be considered by the Health Committee and that the committee present its report finally to the House on or before 15 November 2007.
Vote: Misuse of Drugs (Classification of BZP) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: Misuse of Drugs (Classification of BZP) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 11 September 2007. Volume:642;Page:11731. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Misuse of Drugs (Classification of BZP) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 113 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 8 
Green Party 6; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Bill read a first time.
Wilson Margaret: Urgent Debates Declined — Corrections Minister—Possible Resignation Driving-related Deaths—Potential Government Reaction 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Wilson Margaret: Urgent Debates Declined — Corrections Minister—Possible Resignation Driving-related Deaths—Potential Government Reaction 
[Sitting date: 11 September 2007. Volume:642;Page:11714. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have also received a letter from the Hon Peter Dunne seeking to debate under Standing Order 380 the implications of and potential Government reaction to the deaths of three teenage girls in Canterbury over the weekend. The actual event is a particular case of recent occurrence but there is no ministerial responsibility for the event. Implications of potential Government reaction cannot give rise to a debate under Standing Order 380. The application is also declined.
Wilson Margaret: Urgent Debates Declined — Corrections Minister—Possible Resignation Driving-related Deaths—Potential Government Reaction 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Wilson Margaret: Urgent Debates Declined — Corrections Minister—Possible Resignation Driving-related Deaths—Potential Government Reaction 
[Sitting date: 11 September 2007. Volume:642;Page:11714. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from Rodney Hide seeking to debate under Standing Order 380 the resignation of the Minister of Corrections. As the member’s authenticating material acknowledges at this time there has not been a resignation. There is no particular case of recent occurrence that could give grounds for an urgent debate today. The application is declined.
Woolerton R Doug: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Woolerton R Doug: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 11 September 2007. Volume:642;Page:11712. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
11.  
R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Will he consider implementing changes to New Zealand’s monetary policy framework if such changes are recommended by the Finance and Expenditure Committee’s inquiry into the future monetary policy framework? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Any recommendations will be fully considered not just by me but by the whole Cabinet in conformity with Standing Order 253(1). 
R Doug Woolerton 
: Can the Minister confirm that a large number of the submitters share New Zealand First’s view that we should move from our single focus on price stability and make the Governor of the Reserve Bank take the dollar and export and economic growth into consideration when adjusting interest rates; and would he consider making such changes if the select committee returns with such recommendations? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: As far as I am aware so far the hearings have been a bit like a tennis match—at deuce with about seven advantages so far to one side or the other. Therefore I think it is unwise to draw any conclusions about the outcome of this select committee inquiry until it is complete. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: Is the Minister aware that support for changing our monetary policy has even come from those traditionally seen as Bill English’s mates and does he find it odd that Mr English’s party continues to stonewall any attempts to change New Zealand’s monetary policy for the better? [ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I agree. The Minister can address the question as it relates to ministerial responsibility but not to comments about other parties. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. What part of that question could possibly relate to ministerial responsibility? The member asked him about the views of Bill English’s mates. Now¸ the Minister just does not have the time to go through giving this House the views of Bill’s many many mates. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Thank you; I understand the member. Would the member like to rephrase his question to bring it within ministerial responsibility. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: Madam Speaker I take your suggestion and ask the Minister why he thinks that the National Party is continuing to stonewall any attempts to change New Zealand— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No that is not acceptable. 
H V Ross Robertson 
: Has the Minister seen any reports at all on how fiscal policy can be used to support monetary policy? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I have seen one report that simultaneously calls for larger surpluses to take heat out of the economy and tax cuts to reduce the size of the surplus. Now although I am used to Mr Key and Mr English contradicting each other it is quite impressive for Mr English to contradict himself so glaringly in the one press statement.
Chadwick Steve: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Chadwick Steve: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 11 September 2007. Volume:642;Page:11710. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
9.  
STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) 
 to the  
Minister for Land Information 
: What milestones have been achieved relating to the 100 percent e-lodgment programme over the past 12 months? 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for Land Information) 
: 
 New Zealand is the first country in the world to achieve a comprehensive electronic land transfer and survey system. This is economic transformation. It means the fees for people buying and selling homes are significantly less than they would have been under a paper-based system. There is a faster more efficient service for businesses. It is truly world-leading infrastructure. 
Steve Chadwick 
: Was this major project achieved within budget and how does that compare with predictions of doom and gloom from some quarters? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I am very happy to confirm to the House that this very substantial information technology project was achieved well within budget. A senior member of this House claimed previously that the project had “all the hallmarks of being an Incis mark two.” Who was claiming that this project had the hallmarks of that earlier National Government disaster? It was the Hon Dr Smith. It was not Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith but the Hon Dr Nick Smith. He was wrong again—INCIS under National; progress under Labour. I seek leave to table the  
Dominion  
article that had Nick Smith quoting that it had “all the hallmarks of being an Incis mark two.” 
Document not tabled. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek leave to table the statement from the New Zealand Institute of Surveyors saying exactly those problems— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Street Maryan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Street Maryan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 11 September 2007. Volume:642;Page:11706. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
6.  
MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Commerce 
: Has the Minister received a response from the Securities Commission in relation to her request that they meet with trustee companies to find ways of improving the current regulatory environment for finance companies; if so what was that response? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Commerce) 
: 
 On Thursday last week the Securities Commission provided me with proposals to ensure that all trust deeds provide trustees with robust powers to get the information they need to carry out their duties in the interests of investors. The proposed changes focus on requiring best-practice reporting by issuers to trustees including monthly reports on liquidity asset quality reinvestment rates and any breaches of financing arrangements with third parties; enabling the trustee to engage at the finance company’s expense an expert to report on the company’s true financial position; and thirdly empowering the trustee to appoint an additional auditor if it is not satisfied that the auditor appointed by the company has sufficient experience or capacity. 
Maryan Street 
: Has the Government considered the Securities Commission’s proposals; if so what steps does it propose to take in response? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Yes. Cabinet noted the Securities Commission’s proposals at its meeting yesterday and it has decided to implement the recommended changes by facilitating the making of the regulations which are currently being drafted. The amended requirements will automatically become part of every existing trust deed and every new trust deed and will therefore apply to all finance companies operating in New Zealand. I am pleased the Securities Commission has acted so promptly within existing frameworks to promote best practice across the sector. 
Simon Power 
: What assurances can the Minister give the House that the Securities Commission is aware of all finance company activity as a report released late last week indicated that the Securities Commission had not known of the existence of Finance and Investments; and can we be assured that the commission is on its game as far as any other businesses operating below its radar may be concerned? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: An investigation is going on into that matter and I will not comment on it in the meantime.
Cullen Michael: Motions — Terrorist Attack—11 September 2001 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Cullen Michael: Motions — Terrorist Attack—11 September 2001 
[Sitting date: 11 September 2007. Volume:642;Page:11699. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) 
: 
 I move  
That on the occasion of the sixth anniversary of the attacks on the World Trade Center in New York this House reaffirms its previous expressions of sympathy for those who lost their lives and for their families and reaffirms its determination to combat terrorism. 
Motion agreed to.
Urgent Debates Declined — Corrections Minister—Possible Resignation Driving-related Deaths—Potential Government Reaction 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Urgent Debates Declined — Corrections Minister—Possible Resignation Driving-related Deaths—Potential Government Reaction 
[Sitting date: 11 September 2007. Volume:642;Page:11714. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Urgent Debates Declined 
Corrections Minister—Possible Resignation 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from Rodney Hide seeking to debate under Standing Order 380 the resignation of the Minister of Corrections. As the member’s authenticating material acknowledges at this time there has not been a resignation. There is no particular case of recent occurrence that could give grounds for an urgent debate today. The application is declined. 
Driving-related Deaths—Potential Government Reaction 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have also received a letter from the Hon Peter Dunne seeking to debate under Standing Order 380 the implications of and potential Government reaction to the deaths of three teenage girls in Canterbury over the weekend. The actual event is a particular case of recent occurrence but there is no ministerial responsibility for the event. Implications of potential Government reaction cannot give rise to a debate under Standing Order 380. The application is also declined.
Motions — Terrorist Attack—11 September 2001 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Motions — Terrorist Attack—11 September 2001 
[Sitting date: 11 September 2007. Volume:642;Page:11699. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Tuesday 11 September 2007 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2.50 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Motions 
Terrorist Attack—11 September 2001 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) 
: 
 I move  
That on the occasion of the sixth anniversary of the attacks on the World Trade Center in New York this House reaffirms its previous expressions of sympathy for those who lost their lives and for their families and reaffirms its determination to combat terrorism. 
Motion agreed to.
Heatley Phil: Fisheries Act 1996 Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Heatley Phil: Fisheries Act 1996 Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 24 July 2008. Volume:648;Page:17444. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
: 
 I would like the various parties in the House to know and the various fishing interests—commercial customary and recreational—that are no doubt listening in that the National Party will be voting for this legislation. We see it as important legislation to be going through the House at this time. The bill essentially amends section 13 of the Fisheries Act 1996 to allow the continuation of what has always been done in practice—that is the use of a range of methods and management strategies in the setting of the total allowable catch. 
I thank the Minister of Fisheries Jim Anderton for keeping the National Party informed of progress in the development of this legislation because like him we would be very concerned indeed if come 1 October the Minister was not able to make total allowable catch decisions. The making of those decisions is a very important job—in fact the top job of the Minister of Fisheries. The Minister therefore makes recreational allocations for fish stocks right across the country makes customary allocations decides on mortality rates and ultimately decides the total allowable commercial catch. So in establishing that the current legislation is unclear—and certainly the courts have interpreted that and Crown Law supports that view—I and the National Party are very keen to ensure that we endorse what was always intended in the legislation; that is the continuation of what has always been done. In practice a range of methods have been used to establish the maximum sustainable yield in every fish stock and to ensure that the total allowable catch and the total allowable commercial catch are set appropriately. 
We agree with the Minister of Fisheries that it is illogical and unreasonable to expect research on fish stocks to find out exactly what is going on in every fish stock. There are hundreds of types of fish species and an awful lot of fishing goes on with recreational customary and commercial fishing. The Ministry of Fisheries and certainly New Zealand’s resources could not possibly measure fish stocks in every case. 
Debate interrupted.
Vote: Third Readings — 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: Third Readings — 
[Sitting date: 24 July 2008. Volume:648;Page:17433. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Tariff Amendment Bill the Customs and Excise Amendment Bill (No 4) the Radiocommunications Amendment Bill (No 5) the Fair Trading Amendment Bill (No 2) and the Electricity Amendment Bill (No 3) be now read a third time.  
Ayes 104 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 17 
New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4. 
Bills read a third time.
Jones Dail: Third Readings — 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Jones Dail: Third Readings — 
[Sitting date: 24 July 2008. Volume:648;Page:17425. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 Mr Assistant Speaker it is well known on the part of those who have actually sat in your Chair—and there was a time when I did as well—that the member is now trifling with the Chair. At this point it would be quite customary for the member to be named and if he persisted to be expelled from the House. That is the proper way of dealing with disorder in this House; otherwise the matter becomes totally unsatisfactory and everything falls out of order. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I have made my decision based on Speaker’s ruling 25/5. I will read it again for the benefit of members: “It is not only the right but the duty of a member who can show that there has been anything in the nature of bribery or corruption on the part of other members to bring that matter before the House in the proper constitutional way”—the member is perfectly entitled to do that in the proper constitutional way—“but a member must not make veiled suggestions during the course of debate.” As far as I am concerned veiled suggestions were made during the course of the debate. I have been very tolerant on this.
Hide Rodney: Third Readings — 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Hide Rodney: Third Readings — 
[Sitting date: 24 July 2008. Volume:648;Page:17425. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I consider this to be very serious in our Parliament Mr Assistant Speaker—very serious. I would like you to tell the House what I said that caused you to terminate my speech—the exact words—because the Minister who complained never said or implied what those words were. I do not believe that I have breached any Standing Order in what I was saying and you Mr Assistant Speaker cannot point to the words of the Standing Order that I breached.
Mapp Wayne: Third Readings — 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Mapp Wayne: Third Readings — 
[Sitting date: 24 July 2008. Volume:648;Page:17425. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Frankly I think your ruling has been a bit harsh in this instance. Although Mr Hide’s comments transgressed a number of things he did connect those comments to the free-trade agreement. I note also that the comments were not objected to by the New Zealand First Party and that it took a Minister of the Government to object. I think that the Minister of the Government should think very carefully when he seeks to have speeches by Opposition members terminated essentially at his pleasure. I ask you Mr Assistant Speaker to review your ruling. I appreciate that it would obviously be in the nature of a final warning at this point but I think the penalty was excessive in the circumstances. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank you very much for your consideration Dr Mapp. I had considered the matter carefully. Mr Hide had been warned a number of times. To me—and I have made the decision—there were veiled suggestions during the course of the debate that there was something other than what there was. So I am going to stick with my decision; the member’s speech is terminated.
Hide Rodney: Third Readings — 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Hide Rodney: Third Readings — 
[Sitting date: 24 July 2008. Volume:648;Page:17424. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Are you saying that the one speech the ACT party has on the China free-trade agreement legislation is terminated because this Labour Government does not like any references to be made to bribery or corruption whether or not it is within the rules? I never made a reference to bribery or corruption; it was you who did so Mr Assistant Speaker. But the speech gets terminated. Is that the message you are giving in this Parliament to the people of New Zealand—that anyone who makes any reference to Winston Peters and $100000 going to a lawyer will have his or her speech terminated? That is all I did. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No I also— 
Dail Jones 
: Speaking to— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No Mr Jones I want— 
Dail Jones 
: Briefly. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Briefly Mr Jones.
Pettis Jill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Pettis Jill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 24 July 2008. Volume:648;Page:17411. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
11.  
JILL PETTIS (Labour) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Health 
: How is the Government improving young people’s access to health services? 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK (Associate Minister of Health) 
: 
 As part of the Budget this year over the next 3 years more than 40000 secondary students will gain better access to health services. Over 4 years $17.2 million will go towards health services for young people based at all decile 1 to decile 3 secondary schools teen parent units and alternative education facilities. That adds to the Labour-led Government’s commitment to delivering accessible primary health care to all New Zealanders wherever they are. 
Jill Pettis 
: What are the benefits of the Government’s delivering health care at school and what sorts of services can young people and their parents expect? 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK 
: We know that it works much better to bring health services to where young people are rather than just hoping they will go to existing services when they need to. We know that healthy students are much more likely to learn. School-based services will differ depending on each school’s need but are expected to be nurse-led and may include regular general practitioner clinics. These services will be developed in consultation with the school the primary health organisation and the district health board.
Jones Dail: Third Readings — 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Jones Dail: Third Readings — 
[Sitting date: 24 July 2008. Volume:648;Page:17424. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 Mr Assistant Speaker no one would have had any problem if the member had been speaking to the China - New Zealand free-trade agreement legislation. Clearly he was not. That is why ultimately you had to make the decision on the third warning. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I would also like to point out to the member Speakers’ ruling 44/4: “Members must confine their remarks to the bill before the House and cannot make irrelevant matters relevant by suggesting they ought to be included in the bill.”
Soper Lesley: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Soper Lesley: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 24 July 2008. Volume:648;Page:17395. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
1. LESLEY SOPER (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Has he received any reports from medical professionals on possible changes to funding mechanisms for accidents and injury? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Health) 
: 
 Yes. [ 
Interruption 
] Thank you Gerry. I have seen a report from  
New Zealand Doctor 
 magazine which calls National’s accident compensation policy “ideologically blinkered” and goes on to state: “It leaves a reader wondering why National would want to trash ACC save for putting money in the pockets of lawyers and international insurance companies.” Doctors do not want National’s accident compensation policy I say to Mr Brownlee. 
Lesley Soper 
: Has the Minister seen any other reports from the medical sector regarding changes to funding mechanisms for accidents and injury? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Yes; I have seen a report from the Society of Physiotherapists that states that under privatisation last time “patients were caught in the middle of a ‘bureaucratic nightmare’ as physiotherapists and other providers struggled to see which company covered them.” The only choice that National is offering patients is the choice to suffer. If National was committed to increasing choice then it would have been up front with its policy instead of whispering it to private business audiences and it would not have come forward if it was not leaked by one of Mr Key’s former colleagues at Merrill Lynch. 
Lesley Soper 
: Has the Minister seen any reports on who may benefit from changes to funding mechanisms for accidents and injury? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Absolutely. The major beneficiaries of National’s plans to privatise accident compensation would be lawyers and insurance companies. The real question that Mr Key needs to answer now is: would there be a competitive tender process or has he already stitched up a deal and set a price? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That last comment was inappropriate. 
Peter Brown 
: Noting that the Minister referred to the report by the Society of Physiotherapists that says how disgruntled it was at the last privatisation of accident compensation has he seen the report of the physiotherapists that expresses their total disappointment that the Government has not gone with the financial aspects of the review into physiotherapists employed under the endorsed provider network scheme; if so can he advise the House whether he would recommend to his colleague the Minister for ACC that something be done about that immediately? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: The member is quite right; that is a matter within the portfolio of my colleague the Minister for ACC. I have briefly seen the report and I am advised that there has been good dialogue between physiotherapists and the Government and that more progress can be expected.
Wilson Margaret: Points of Order — Privilege—Donations to Members 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Wilson Margaret: Points of Order — Privilege—Donations to Members 
[Sitting date: 24 July 2008. Volume:648;Page:17395. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Thank you Mr Hide. I refer you to Speaker’s ruling 170/4 for your information and maybe for the information of others in the House: “Once a matter of privilege has been raised with the Speaker it is out of order to refer to it in debate in the House.” I am aware that you have asked a question. I am following due process.
Hide Rodney: Points of Order — Privilege—Donations to Members 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Hide Rodney: Points of Order — Privilege—Donations to Members 
[Sitting date: 24 July 2008. Volume:648;Page:17395. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The Prime Minister has said that the proper approach to the issue of Mr Peters and the $100000 donation is through you on the matter of members’ pecuniary interests. Mr Copeland and I have made complaints to you. I was wondering as there is a great deal of interest in this matter whether you could enlighten the House as to the process that you are following and the timetable as to when we might hear the outcome. Thank you.
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
[Sitting date: 24 July 2008. Volume:648;Page:17395. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 The Government now has as no doubt members will notice a very full Order Paper. There is plenty of work to continue through to the election and indeed into the new term of the Government. On the other matters that the member raises we shall see what progress is made.
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
[Sitting date: 24 July 2008. Volume:648;Page:17395. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I thank the Leader of the House and Deputy Prime Minister for that indication of what the Government hopes to progress as business. I would ask whether he is able to give us any further update on where things are with the emissions trading scheme bill and also with the Real Estate Agents Bill which was a high priority for the Government just a short time ago but now appears to be slipping down the Order Paper somewhat.
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
[Sitting date: 24 July 2008. Volume:648;Page:17395. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 When the House resumes on Tuesday priority will be given to the remaining stages of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill (No 2) and the Committee stage of the Appropriation (2008/09 Estimates) Bill which of course takes the form of the 8-hour estimates debate. If time allows the Government will also seek to progress first readings of bills currently on the Order Paper. Wednesday is a members’ day.
Points of Order — Privilege—Donations to Members 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Points of Order — Privilege—Donations to Members 
[Sitting date: 24 July 2008. Volume:648;Page:17395. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Points of Order 
Privilege—Donations to Members 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The Prime Minister has said that the proper approach to the issue of Mr Peters and the $100000 donation is through you on the matter of members’ pecuniary interests. Mr Copeland and I have made complaints to you. I was wondering as there is a great deal of interest in this matter whether you could enlighten the House as to the process that you are following and the timetable as to when we might hear the outcome. Thank you. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Thank you Mr Hide. I refer you to Speaker’s ruling 170/4 for your information and maybe for the information of others in the House: “Once a matter of privilege has been raised with the Speaker it is out of order to refer to it in debate in the House.” I am aware that you have asked a question. I am following due process.
Business Statement 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Business Statement 
[Sitting date: 24 July 2008. Volume:648;Page:17395. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Thursday 24 July 2008 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Business Statement 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 When the House resumes on Tuesday priority will be given to the remaining stages of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill (No 2) and the Committee stage of the Appropriation (2008/09 Estimates) Bill which of course takes the form of the 8-hour estimates debate. If time allows the Government will also seek to progress first readings of bills currently on the Order Paper. Wednesday is a members’ day. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I thank the Leader of the House and Deputy Prime Minister for that indication of what the Government hopes to progress as business. I would ask whether he is able to give us any further update on where things are with the emissions trading scheme bill and also with the Real Estate Agents Bill which was a high priority for the Government just a short time ago but now appears to be slipping down the Order Paper somewhat. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 The Government now has as no doubt members will notice a very full Order Paper. There is plenty of work to continue through to the election and indeed into the new term of the Government. On the other matters that the member raises we shall see what progress is made.