edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Ryall Tony: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Ryall Tony: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:616;Page:11842] 
11.  
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
 to the  
Minister of Police 
: Has he seen the reports of the police national road safety manager stating whereas police previously had discretion to consider circumstances such as weather and traffic conditions they would now be encouraged to ticket anyone driving above the speed limit; if so why is this move being adopted across all police districts as stated by Superintendent Fitzgerald? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Minister of Police) 
: 
 I am assured by Superintendent Fitzgerald that he did not make the comments reported by Rachael Grunwell in the  
Sunday Star-Times  
of 29 February 2004. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Is the Minister therefore saying that there is no policy in any district in New Zealand to remove discretion and to advise officers that tickets should be issued to anyone driving over the speed limit? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: I am saying that nothing has changed since the Commissioner of Police introduced his policies. 
Mahara Okeroa 
: What is the best way to avoid getting a speeding ticket? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not think that is an appropriate question at this stage. I do think a foot on the brake is required. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I hate to differ with you but seeing that Mr Ryall has sought recently to make his career one of enforcement of law and order the question being asked by Mr Okeroa is a very very pertinent one and I am dying to hear the answer. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have ruled it out but I will take the leave of the House if members want an answer from the Minister. Is there any objection? There is not. 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: I think the message has to be very clear that people should not speed. If they do not they will not get a ticket. 
Peter Brown 
: Is the Minister aware that Britain is doing the exact reverse to what he is advocating and is making speed cameras much more identifiable and making the police presence on the road much more obvious; if so why does he not recommend to his colleagues that we follow the lead of Britain or is it that he just wants to maximise revenue? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: I think the member ought to go back to the time when the roads were without a lot of police. We decided to have the highway patrol to make policing highly visible for motorists. We have gone further with the Anywhere Anytime campaign. Speed cameras will be about because speed causes deaths on the road. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: What evidence is there to support Superintendent Steve Fitzgerald’s claims that “compliance rates improve if people are given a ticket” given the evidence last year that although a record number of speeding tickets were issued the road toll went up for the first time in years and the evidence this year that the road toll is already 106 compared with 92 at the same time last year? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: What is very evident is that speeding at the upper end has been reduced and the police are now working on getting speed down across the country.
Mackey Janet: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
Mackey Janet: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8072] 
JANET MACKEY (NZ Labour—East Coast) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Dr LYNDA SCOTT (NZ National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. This bill is very comprehensive legislation and in my speech today I managed to talk on only one clause clause 8. Now we did not even get on to the issue of restricted activities— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I am sorry but that is not a point of order.
Peters Winston: Business Statement 
Peters Winston: Business Statement 
[Volume:611;Page:8603] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I wonder whether I might ask the Leader of the House whether the Prime Minister will deign to pay a visit to the House to answer questions today. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order.
Maharey Steve: Future Directions (Working for Families) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
Maharey Steve: Future Directions (Working for Families) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:13520] 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 I move  
That the Committee divide the bill into the Social Security (Working for Families) Amendment Bill and the Taxation (Working for Families) Bill pursuant to Supplementary Order Paper 222.
Cosgrove Clayton: Imports and Exports (Restrictions) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Cosgrove Clayton: Imports and Exports (Restrictions) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:7006] 
CLAYTON COSGROVE (NZ Labour—Waimakariri) 
: I rise to take a short call and support the bill and to note with interest Mr Jones’ sterling contribution. It is one that I am sure will be noted by no one outside this House nor inside it. 
I think this bill is sound legislation. It makes some substantial changes to protect people both domestically and internationally and as a previous speaker said its progress should be facilitated and the bill expedited swiftly through the House. I am sure it will be.
Hartley Ann: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
Hartley Ann: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
[Volume:618;Page:14312] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The new Standing Orders provide for 8 hours of debate on the estimates. Each member may have no more than two speeches of 5 minutes on each vote. The estimates debate should be relevant to the Government’s current spending plans as contained in the Estimates of Appropriations. As each vote is reached a question will be put that that vote stand part of the schedules. If it is the wish of the Committee I will put the question on groups of votes by Minister until a vote is reached that members seek to debate. A separate question on this vote will then be proposed from the Chair. Should it be the wish of the Committee a question may be proposed on two or more related votes for the purpose of debating them together. 
At the conclusion of the 8-hour debate any remaining votes and the remaining provisions of the bill will be put as one question. The Government indicates which votes are available for debate. I understand that all votes are available in order of seniority of Ministers commencing with the Speaker’s votes. A list setting out the order is on the Table.
Parker David: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Parker David: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:17115] 
DAVID PARKER (Labour—Otago) 
: 
 Two speakers previously we saw the Hon Richard Prebble get to his feet and say that prior to the passage of the Resource Management Act “anyone could do anything so long as it did not cause a nuisance to others.”  
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Prior to any planning law. 
DAVID PARKER 
: Oh the member is saying now “prior to any planning law” because he actually said “prior to the Resource Management Act”. He obviously forgot about the Town and Country Planning Act. He obviously forgot about the Water and Soil Conservation Act. What nonsense! The reality is that customary use rights that are protected under this legislation have existed since 1840. What this provision says is that those rights ought not to be undermined by new Resource Management Act consents. That is no different from the principle that applies to existing uses under the Resource Management Act.  
When the Act came into effect some people already had rights to do things. Those things were called existing uses. No one could get a Resource Management Act consent if I had an existing use to do something that would be rendered nugatory by that Resource Management Act consent. Part 5 of the bill does no more than protect the existing use rights of those customary uses under the Resource Management Act. Indeed it does not actually afford them quite as much protection as is afforded to existing use rights because there are limited circumstances where the Minister can say: “This adverse effect this undermining of the customary use right because of national considerations ought to be permitted.” But the general proposition here is that Part 5 does not add lots of complexity— 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: The member has misinterpreted the law. He is a lawyer who doesn’t know the law. 
DAVID PARKER 
: Yes I am a lawyer and I have appeared in the Planning Tribunal the Environment Court the High Court and the Court of Appeal on Resource Management Act matters so I do claim to have some understanding of these matters. It is true that all this is doing is effectively giving customary use rights existing use rights under the Resource Management Act.
Catchpole Brent: Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Bill — In Committee 
Catchpole Brent: Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8728] 
BRENT CATCHPOLE (NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. During the vote members of the Government were calling out across the Chamber. That is against the rules of the House.
Peters Winston: Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading Second Reading 
Peters Winston: Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading Second Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:6746] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. We have the  
Hansard 
 record but I could not hear that speech because of the degree of laughter around me at the time. I wonder whether the member could repeat her speech. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order.
Hughes Darren: Third Readings 
Hughes Darren: Third Readings 
[Volume:616;Page:12426] 
DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 I rise to support the third reading of the various bills that have come out of the Business Law Reform Bill. The Commerce Committee did a very good job on this legislation and reported it back in a way that improves the business regulatory framework. It has the support of a number of the key stakeholders and I look forward to its rapid passage through the House.
Coddington Deborah: Sex Offenders Registry Bill — Referral to Justice and Electoral Committee 
Coddington Deborah: Sex Offenders Registry Bill — Referral to Justice and Electoral Committee 
[Volume:626;Page:21037] 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT) 
: 
 I seek leave for members’ order of the day No. l for the second reading of the Sex Offenders Registry Bill to be discharged and for the Sex Offenders Registry Bill to be referred back to the Justice and Electoral Committee for consideration as discussed in the Business Committee. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There is no objection.
Vote: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8173] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 47 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7. 
Noes 68 
Labour 52; Green Party 8; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 111 in the name of Heather Roy to the definition of “health practitioner” in clause 220(4) be agreed to.
Donald Rod: Estimates Debate —  Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Donald Rod: Estimates Debate —  Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:610;Page:7285] 
ROD DONALD (Musterer—Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. When you ruled earlier on the issue of leave to extend the estimates debate I did not hear you give a view on my request that you take some time to look at the whole issue of how the 8-hour estimates debate is allocated. I am not asking you for a decision; I am asking for your formal consideration of the problem that we have just faced.
Beyer Georgina: Social Security (Social Assistance) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Beyer Georgina: Social Security (Social Assistance) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:624;Page:19726] 
GEORGINA BEYER (Labour—Wairarapa) 
: 
 I rise to speak in the third reading debate of the Social Security (Social Assistance) Amendment Bill. I should more correctly during the second reading debate have made the acknowledgment I am about to make but as chairperson of the Social Services Committee which had the purview over this bill before it returned to the House I would like to acknowledge the members of that committee. They put in a great deal of thought and consideration some of which we have heard from the member who has just resumed her seat. I would like to acknowledge Dr Muriel Newman who was the deputy chairperson of the committee Paul Adams Sue Bradford Judith Collins the Hon Taito Phillip Field Bill Gudgeon Moana Mackey Dr Lynda Scott and the Hon Judith Tizard. I also thank all advisers and committee staff who assisted in the passage of our work with this particular bill. 
I would like to talk about two of the other provisions that are quite important in the bill. The bill extends eligibility for an accommodation supplement to residents of retirement villages who have a licence to occupy tenure and who meet the other qualifying criteria for the accommodation supplement including an income and cash assets test. From 1 July this year it is expected that several hundred retirement village residents will qualify for an accommodation supplement of on average between $37 and $54 a week. 
A stand-down period of between 1 and 10 weeks applies to most new applicants before their benefits commence. The stand-down is currently calculated on the applicant’s income in the 26 weeks before becoming entitled to the benefit and on the number of children in the applicant’s care. From 1 May 2005 all benefit applicants will be able to elect either a 52-week or a 26-week income assessment period for the calculation of their stand-down periods. At the moment some seasonal workers who work for part of the year can be disadvantaged by the 26-week assessment. This change will benefit approximately 4500 people a year by reducing the length of their initial stand-down period and it will also reduce disincentives for people to undertake seasonal work. 
I am pleased with the progress this bill has made in reaching its third reading. I look forward to its speedy dispatch in becoming law.
Dunne Peter: Motions — Crop and Food Research—Air Accident 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Dunne Peter: Motions — Crop and Food Research—Air Accident 
[Sitting date: 10 June 2003. Volume:609;Page:6039. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 United Future wishes to extend its condolences to the families and colleagues of those who were killed in the Christchurch air crash and to be associated with the motion that has been moved by the Minister this afternoon. 
This was a tragedy of awesome potential. Seventy seconds from safety the plane crashed and killed those eight people a number of whom were on their way to join colleagues celebrating a staff occasion and who never arrived. It is awesome too because of the contribution the Crop and Food Research people had made in the world of international research and who as the Minister acknowledged were on the point of establishing huge international credibility for it. It is awesome when we consider the families who waited for a phone call that never came. The story of the woman whose husband survived Mrs Barton being too scared to watch television once she knew the plane was down for fear of what the news might bring brought home to all of us the intensity of this tragedy at a personal level. As the Leader of the Opposition reflected I am sure that story made all of us who use aircraft more frequently than most just think again about our safety in such circumstances. 
This is a very sad occasion for the scientific community in New Zealand and for the families involved. Like other members of this House I extend my deepest personal sympathy to everyone who has suffered a tragic loss in this case.
Vote: Education (Export Education Levy) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Education (Export Education Levy) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:619;Page:14762] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Motion agreed to.
Power Simon: General Debates 
Power Simon: General Debates 
[Volume:619;Page:15257] 
SIMON POWER (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I apologise to my colleague Ron Mark but according to the list I have in front of me the next call should go to the Maori Party. I wonder whether you could advise the House as to how matters are to proceed from this point. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The next party that is due for the call is New Zealand First and it will take it. The 12th spot can then be reallocated if the member from the Maori Party does not turn up by the time the 12th spot comes up. 
SIMON POWER 
: I ask that you clarify for the House whether in the event that a party is not able to take an allocated call it is then the case that the call moves to the next allocated party and that an unallocated slot remains at the end of the speaking list. If that is the case could you please advise the House how you intend to allocate that final spot. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: My thinking at this stage is that ACT has not had a call. [ 
Interruption 
] I was going to speak to the ACT member in a minute. Every now and again in the general debate a party does not get a call. Because ACT is not getting a call today it seems reasonable to me that ACT members be asked whether they would like that call—if the member from the Maori Party does not come before the 12th call.
Hutchison Paul: Racing Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Hutchison Paul: Racing Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:606;Page:3974] 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (NZ National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 In both Part 8 and the schedules about which we are now talking National has contributed considerably in advancing and progressing this part of the bill but we still have not had from the Minister an explanation of why the PricewaterhouseCoopers report or the report of the racing industry working-group was not taken notice of. I hope that the Minister will before we complete the reading of the schedules take a small call and give us a logical explanation of why she has not taken notice of that very important report and of the people who spent a lot of time compiling it. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Papers 16 and 62 in the name of the Hon Mark Gosche to the schedules be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to and schedules as amended agreed to. 
Bill reported with amendment.
Field Taito Phillip: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
Field Taito Phillip: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8163] 
Hon TAITO PHILLIP FIELD (Minister of State) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Robertson H V Ross: Corrections Bill — First Reading 
Robertson H V Ross: Corrections Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:607;Page:4706] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The question is that the Corrections Bill be now read a first time. As many as are of that opinion will say “Aye” of the contrary opinion will say “No”. The Noes have it? A party vote is called for. The Clerk will conduct a party vote.
Hobbs Marian: Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Hobbs Marian: Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:615;Page:11257] 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Associate Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade) 
: 
 As the last member just referred to I am not prepared to support the amendment that he is proposing. This is an argument that has also been put up by Mr Franks. What I understand them to be arguing is that whereas they can accept that judges and prosecution lawyers will be granted immunity under the International Criminal Court as is in the bill they have this terrible fear that if the court were sitting in New Zealand—and this is a really long bow to draw by the way—and had brought across Mr Milosevic which I think was the example that was given and witnesses to defend Mr Milosevic were being called they would automatically be given immunity. 
Let me make two things very clear. The first is that the immunity is limited and this is in the bill; and it is in the bill quite clearly by cross-references to the Rome Statute and to the Agreement on Privileges and Immunities of the International Criminal Court. Mr Mapp argues that we should therefore actually spell out the cross-reference by amending the legislation; I would say to him that that would be very tortuous. If in regard to the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act I cross-referenced to every different international agreement and wrote it out those regulations—and those laws are already 10 to 20 centimetres deep—I would be writing out legislation in full for ever. I do not think that that is good lawmaking and I do trust that there are international lawyers who are fully au fait with doing the cross referencing to the Rome Statute. 
The second reason I would give as to why I do not think this is necessary is that following this legislation if this legislation gets passed and the amendment becomes law there will be written an Order in Council which again is a public document. The Order in Council will spell out very clearly that such immunities will not be necessarily available—that they are limited—and they will not be there holus bolus to everybody who comes in and who may be a threat to New Zealand in the terms of someone witnessing for Mr Milosevic. I do think it is a kind of “dancing on the head of a pin” argument that we were given here tonight. I can assure anyone listening that New Zealand is secure under this legislation.
Smith Murray: Relationships (Statutory References) Bill — In Committee 
Smith Murray: Relationships (Statutory References) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:624;Page:19089] 
MURRAY SMITH (United Future) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. My understanding is that because those amendments seek to alter Acts that are not part of the bill and not included in it they are outside the scope of the bill and can be put only if the leave of the Committee is granted. On that basis I believe that leave should be sought by the member to put them.
Business Statement 
Business Statement 
[Volume:624;Page:19509] 
Business Statement 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week in the House priority will be given to the remaining stages of the Social Security (Social Assistance) Amendment Bill and the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4) and the second reading of the Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill. Wednesday is a members’ day and members might care to know that Lesley Soper’s maiden speech will take place following the general debate on Wednesday. If there is any time available priority will also be given to first readings on the Order Paper.
Prebble Richard: Customs and Excise (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Prebble Richard: Customs and Excise (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:608;Page:5376] 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 I am seeking the leave of the House to table a document. Because we are proceeding under extraordinary urgency the bill cannot be checked by a select committee. But the Minister of Youth Affairs told the House that this bill was introduced to carry out the recommendations of the Brian Easton report. I have a copy from the library. I thought the House should know—and I am quite happy to table it—that in fact Mr Easton recommended that the tax on full-strength spirits be reduced. I seek leave to have this report tabled so that perhaps the Government might change its mind. 
Document not tabled.
Beyer Georgina: Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading Second Reading 
Beyer Georgina: Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading Second Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:6744] 
GEORGINA BEYER (NZ Labour—Wairarapa) 
: 
 I rise to take a brief call in support of the first reading of this bill. One can be surprised that Mr Peters supports the consideration of over 10000 applications even when we know they are from people who will not get proposed or skilled jobs. The bill enables the lapsing of applications so that we can protect those skilled applicants who have offers of skilled jobs and who will do very well here. May I just finally add as a parting comment that with the collective IQ of the Labour caucus we know having tested the nation that we are right.
Shirley Ken: Points of Order — Urgent Question 
Shirley Ken: Points of Order — Urgent Question 
[Volume:612;Page:8951] 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. In view of my raising the issue in the House could you perhaps refer me to the Standing Orders under which you declined it.
Burton Mark: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Approvals and Enforcement) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Burton Mark: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Approvals and Enforcement) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:623;Page:18787] 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Defence) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am aware that members are very keen to see the progress of this very important legislation as they have all said so. I seek leave for the House to complete the votes on this bill. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is.
Hartley Ann: Building Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Hartley Ann: Building Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:619;Page:14857] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: This includes debate on schedule 4.
Vote: Maori Television Service Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Maori Television Service Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:607;Page:5071] 
A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
Labour 52; Green Party 9. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 23; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8. 
Amendments as amended agreed to.
Hobbs Marian: New Organisms and Other Matters Bill — In Committee 
Hobbs Marian: New Organisms and Other Matters Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:9073] 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 For the benefit of the Committee and of the listeners to this debate—because this is a delicious schedule—I say this schedule has nothing to do with genetically modified organisms. It is about the Ministry for the Environment tidying up its list of prohibited new organisms arriving in the country. We are not allowed to have any Arctic foxes any mongooses any skeleton weed—I miss the fact that we cannot have skeleton weed—or any hairy thorn apples. That is not to do with genetic modification. It is a good reminder that the Act we are amending is the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act. The genetically modified organisms are only one part of that Act. There are many new organisms that could give this country a lot of problems and we are trying to keep them out.
Paraone Pita: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Paraone Pita: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:623;Page:18850] 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 I stand to comment on one or two aspects of Part 7 of the Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill and the schedule relating to it. We heard from earlier speakers that the three ancillary claims are connected to Ngati Awa hence their inclusion in this bill. I would have thought that an explanation of that connection would be described somewhere in the bill. Anyone looking at the bill without any knowledge of that connection would have to ask why the three ancillary claims are included in it. That is my first point. My second point is that I can understand why the ancillary claimants agreed to have their claims included in this legislation. The reason would be purely a matter of convenience in order to have their claims dealt with. 
Is it not strange that we are taking advice from the Waitangi Tribunal and accepting what it suggests we do without giving due regard to the rangatiratanga—something that the tribunal and dare I say even this Government have often extolled the virtues of—being applied to these three claimant groups? I would have thought given the tribunal’s support for the use of the word “rangatiratanga”—and I ought to add that the word is referred to in the Maori version of the treaty—that that concept would be given those three ancillary claimants. 
I also want to express concern with regard to the Rangitaiki 60C claims. Clause 163(2)(b) makes reference to the acceptance of legal adoption. I know that during the select committee stage of this bill in particular and in subsequent hearings some concern was expressed about the acceptance of those who although legally adopted are not connected by way of genealogical ties. I am not quite sure whether that is something the claimants clearly wanted or whether it is something the agents for the Crown suggested should be done. 
I support the concerns expressed by Dr Mapp from the National Party who outlined that all the claimants are clearly whanau or of a hapu group and not of the iwi group. The fact has been mentioned that they can claim genealogical ties to Ngati Awa. This leads me to ask whether they are therefore natural beneficiaries of Ngati Awa. If so then they seem to be able to have a bigger bite of the cherry. In fact they have two bites: they have a bite by virtue of their ancillary claim and also they are able to claim beneficial entitlements by way of their genealogical connections with Ngati Awa. 
I invite the Minister to take a call on these matters.
Carter Chris: Dog Control Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Carter Chris: Dog Control Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:613;Page:9867] 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 I thank Mr Jim Peters for raising the issue of the response of local government to the survey I put out last Christmas asking the councils all over New Zealand—all 76 of them that are required to enforce this legislation—how effective the 1996 legislation was. Frankly I was appalled with the response we got. A few councils were good record-keepers. Some were absolutely hopeless; they did not keep any records at all. We did not have any way of finding out how many dogs were registered in New Zealand because of the shoddy and inconsistent record-keeping of the councils. 
The legislation gives a strong direction to and requirement on territorial authorities to have best practice. There was a bit of best practice. I hope that at the end of this there will be best practice everywhere. The Supplementary Order Paper I have tabled requires that the councils record the basis of each individual classification of a menacing dog. It also provides that the councils give a copy of that to the Secretary of Local Government. So we are following it up. It will be checked on. That will help to ensure that central government and local government have statistics available so that they know what is happening with dogs in our community what percentage of dogs are registered dogs how many attacks are taking place and whether there are remedial steps that can be taken to try to prevent and mitigate against those attacks. 
Again I emphasise that this bill is about public safety. These are common-sense provisions that we hope will improve public safety.
Pettis Jill: Customs and Excise (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Pettis Jill: Customs and Excise (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:608;Page:5366] 
JILL PETTIS (NZ Labour—Whanganui) 
: 
 In response to Mr Jones who has just resumed his seat I want to say right at the start that I did not vote to lower the drinking age. 
This bill is important because so many times we hear speeches in this House based on moral outrage and fundamentalism. I ask members here tonight to consider the really important aspect of this bill: our young people. Let us not worry about party politics. Let us not focus on one side of the House attacking the other. If we sincerely care about our young people let us take stock and act in a sincere way. So many of us get up with mock moral outrage and say that we worry about the youth of New Zealand. Tonight we have the opportunity to do something about that. 
Let us think about what this bill really is about. Members might say that it is just about money but I suggest that it is not. The facts speak for themselves. Price is the principal determinant of how much people drink and what kind of alcohol they drink. If that is not the case how come people buy “Chateau Cardboard” when they would much prefer a finer wine usually found in a bottle? I use that example because people prefer to drink more expensive alcohol but cannot always afford to. 
I also say to members opposite that in this country the number of publicly funded hospitalisations of 18 to 19-year-olds where the primary diagnosis was alcohol-related has shown an increasing trend from 55 in 1996 to 85 in 1999 to 114 in 2000. I suggest to members that they should stop and consider what this bill is about instead of resorting to cheap tactics such as attacking each other and consider what they can do to assist young people in New Zealand.
Vote: Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill — Instruction to Committee Second Reading Instruction to Committee Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill — Instruction to Committee Second Reading Instruction to Committee Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:625;Page:19806] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill be now read a second time 
. 
Ayes 74 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 46 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 9; Green Party 9; Maori Party 1. 
Bill read a second time.
Mackey Moana: Securities Legislation Bill — First Reading 
Mackey Moana: Securities Legislation Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:622;Page:18049] 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I am happy to rise to support the first reading of the Securities Legislation Bill. It is important that we do all we can to build confidence in New Zealand financial markets in order to ensure that we are encouraging investment. Looking through this Securities Legislation Bill I think that strengthening our regulatory framework as is proposed in this bill is an important step towards achieving that confidence because the current laws are complex and difficult to enforce as we have heard from the Minister in charge of the bill. Although not a reason in itself the lack of prosecutions in New Zealand to date under the current law should be taken into consideration as an indication that maybe the current law in this area is inadequate. I look forward to seeing the work that the Commerce Committee does on this bill. It is good to see that it has wide-ranging support. It is important legislation and I commend it to the House.
Parker David: Consumer Protection (Definitions of Goods and Services) Bill — In Committee 
Parker David: Consumer Protection (Definitions of Goods and Services) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6900] 
DAVID PARKER (NZ Labour—Otago) 
: I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Hide Rodney: Debate on Budget Policy Statement 
Hide Rodney: Debate on Budget Policy Statement 
[Volume:615;Page:11542] 
RODNEY HIDE (ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. There has become an unfortunate tendency for Ministers of this Government to address the Speaker while sitting in their chairs and engaging in conversations across the House. That is not the proper way to do it. We saw that behaviour from the Hon Trevor Mallard during question time today and we have just seen it from the Hon Mark Burton. The proper way to address the Chair is to stand and take a point of order—not to shout out a series of questions or give advice as we have just seen. I say that it brings the House into disrepute because we stand here with some respect for the Speaker’s Chair. You should make it quite plain to the Hon Mark Burton that if he wants to address the Speaker in the House he is to stand and take a point of order or else move across and speak to the Speaker not lounge around in his chair making comments. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member has made his point.
Hutchison Paul: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Hutchison Paul: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6506] 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (NZ National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 There is a certain irony about Part 3 being called “Consequential amendments” because clearly here is a situation where my colleague Simon Power has noted an error that has taken away a lot of the consistency in terms of the true relevance of this bill. 
The legislative history of this bill is one of absolutely untimely rush. We saw the tax grab introduced on 7 April 2003 and here we are 6 weeks later seeing the sort of mistake that this Labour Government is likely to make—and has made—because of the untimely haste with which it goes about grabbing levies from the New Zealandpublic. It is just an absolutely classic reflection of its inability to scrutinise things carefully and to ensure that all the i’s are dotted and the t’s are crossed. This is undoubtedly a classic example of the Labour Government’s lack of concentration on detail and its untimely haste in taking levies from the New Zealand public. The Labour Government is on form once again. After all we heard earlier in this debate that it was not only former Labour Prime Minister Mike Moore who called a levy a tax but also the present Minister of Finance Dr Michael Cullen who referred to this as a back-door tax. 
Let us just have a look at Part 3 “Consequential amendments” because there is no doubt that the amendments are more than consequential; they are hugely important to this unfortunate further tax grab perpetrated on the New Zealand public by this Labour Government. Let us just go through it. Clause 13(1) states: “Section 2(1) of the Customs and Excise Act 1996 is amended by adding to the definition of  
duty 
 the following paragraph: ‘(e) levies imposed …’ ”. One of the most significant submissions came from the Automobile Association which made the point—as did Paul Adams from United Future—that at present the 39c for fuel excise duty on petrol is comprised of 2.3c for the Accident Compensation Corporation 18.5c for the National Land Transport Fund and 18.5c for the Crown account. The Automobile Association and Business New Zealand quite rightly pointed out that there is no need to increase the excise duty from 2.3c to 5.08c which is an increase of over 100 percent. They said it would be far more equitable and proper to take it from the amount that goes into the Crown account. 
So we have a great difficulty here—not only with the untimely haste that the Government has used in bringing in this bill but also with the way it has approached the equity of collecting a tax on motor vehicles and fuel. It has not only confined it to petrol and the vehicle but it has forgotten about what real risk rating is because it has thrown aside the very important competitive model that challenged the monopoly and which brought about earlier rehabilitation.
Vote: Building Bill — Second Reading 
Vote: Building Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:619;Page:14548] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments recommended by the Government Administration Committee by majority be agreed to. 
Ayes 83 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 36 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Question agreed to.
Carter John: Maori Purposes Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Carter John: Maori Purposes Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:607;Page:4816] 
JOHN CARTER (Senior Whip—NZ National) 
: 
 Even though there has been an instruction to the Committee to take the bill part by part I wonder whether the Committee would consider having one wide-ranging debate over all the parts. It would allow the debate to flow and I seek leave accordingly.
Peters Jim: Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Peters Jim: Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:619;Page:15302] 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 This issue has a long history to it and a sense of rightness about it. The position of New Zealand First from the very beginning has been that this bill is about water allocation. In passing I say that the stance taken by the member for Otago is absolutely the correct one with regard to Project Aqua. Whether Project Aqua should proceed is not the rationale for this bill; as far as we are concerned the rationale for the original bill and the bill before us in its present form is one of water allocation. 
But there is the historical issue that has just been raised by Dr Smith—that is the historical 1969 Order in Council that granted the Electricity Corporation the right to dam use divert discharge and take water from the upper Waitaki River and lakes. This order as we all know followed on the historical dam development going right back to 1928 when the first Waitaki dam was commenced. The 1969 order also provided for specified amounts of water to be granted by the Waitaki catchment authority for irrigation purposes. That comes back to the issue that has been advanced to us by relevant farmers in the district. In 1990 when the Electricity Corporation applied to the Canterbury Regional Council under the Water and Soil Conservation Act for a bundle of water rights those rights were granted. They were granted on 1 February 1991 for a term of 35 years. 
Against that historical background come the legal issues that are before us. We know that it was stated in the Environment Court on 12 December 2003: “It is very unlikely that some residents of the Waitaki catchment have legitimate expectations as to future irrigation water rights based on the 1969 Order in Council.” That decision of the Environment Court has been further before the courts in recent times. Notwithstanding that New Zealand First gives support to the suggested amendment from Dr Smith because all that the amendment does—and the farmers would ask for no more with regard to the history of this development particularly in respect of the legal matters that are yet to be decided upon in another place—is place on record an ability for their case to be heard before the board that is set up in this part. We know that the present Canterbury Natural Resources Regional Plan will not be operative until 2009 at the earliest. A water allocation plan set up as a regional plan under this bill could be in operation much much earlier than that and when it is in operation the interests of that group which is affected and still feels affected by the Order in Council would need to be looked at again. This bill provides a suitable vehicle to undertake that role—the relevant board set up under the bill.
Mackey Janet: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4) — Second Reading 
Mackey Janet: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4) — Second Reading 
[Volume:618;Page:14493] 
JANET MACKEY (Labour—East Coast) 
: 
 As deputy chair of the Primary Production Committee I start by thanking all the members of the committee and the people who travelled—quite often long distances—to come before the committee to make submissions. I thank those players for their work in trying to make this bill into good legislation. I believe we have achieved that. 
I have listened to the speeches today and I note that a number of parties are expressing concern over the change in the boundaries. Certainly I imagine we all responded to the consequences of that change. However I commend the National Party members for saying that they will be seeking further advice as to the reasons for it and that they are prepared to listen to that advice and judge the change accordingly. My understanding of the change in boundaries is that the scampi beds lie over the border of the fishing-ground. If we believe in the quota management system—and certainly the Primary Production Committee is the first committee to urge the Ministry of Fisheries to get people on boats in order to ensure that people are taking the correct amount of fish from the correct place—I would say that the fishery is impossible to manage if the fishing bed is divided in half by the boundary between the two regions. So I certainly hope that members opposite follow up on the rationale for the change. Knowing the consequences of it—and certainly none of the committee members are ecstatically happy with the consequences—I would say that that needs to be taken into consideration in balance with the ability of the ministry actually to police that fishery and to ensure the sustainability of the scampi beds. 
Dealing with scampi has been a long and wonderful experience. I never believed when I came here 12 years ago that I would leave here something of an authority on the behaviour and life-cycle of and the fishing methods for scampi—even if I have never tasted them. It has been an extraordinary experience. Once again I thank the other members of the committee for the sensible and intelligent way that the issue was approached. I am delighted to speak today as scampi goes into the quota management system. Long may that put to bed all the problems the industry has suffered in the past.
Cosgrove Clayton: General Debates 
Cosgrove Clayton: General Debates 
[Volume:609;Page:6156] 
CLAYTON COSGROVE (NZ Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I want to give that member an assurance that we will not be interjecting on United Future members because they are quality MPs with good things to say. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: No. That is not a point of order.
Franks Stephen: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Franks Stephen: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:621;Page:16346] 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Is it a new point of order because I have ruled? 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: It is a new point of order Madam Chairperson. The point is that it has been indicated that this is a matter that Mr Brown should take up with the Standing Orders Committee. That is the right advice and I do not dispute the ruling. What I would ask is whether the Chair or the Speaker in these circumstances where this has been the subject of debate in the Chamber would provide an opinion to that committee. I believe that people listening to the debate may be concerned that this device could be a cover to enable members of Parliament to say one thing to one group and another thing to another group without being outed. That is not good for the reputation of the House. I ask you to form a view or to have an input given that it has arisen when you have been the Chairperson. It is a concern to me that people listening will be concerned that we are trying to cover up votes. The ACT party is quite prepared to make it plain what its split vote consists of. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member makes a fair point.