edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Vote: Overseas Investment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Overseas Investment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:21556] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 51; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 5; Green Party 7. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Rod Donald to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit this clause and substitute the following clause: 
3Purpose 
The purpose of this Act is to acknowledge that: 
(a)It is a privilege for overseas persons to own or control sensitive New Zealand assets by— 
(i)requiring overseas investments in those assets before being made to meet criteria for consent; and 
(ii)imposing conditions on those overseas investments. 
(b)Any ownership or control must be in the national interest for the long term benefit of New Zealanders. 
(c)Public participation in decisions about overseas investment will be encouraged.
[Volume:613;Page:9908] 
I urge us to take carefully the consideration of the bill as reported back but some work needs to be done to give New Zealand women confidence that there will not be people crawling all over their primary clinical record.
Benson-Pope David: Standing Orders—Suspension 
Benson-Pope David: Standing Orders—Suspension 
[Volume:622;Page:17332] 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Associate Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 Now that the Standing Order has been suspended for the purpose of the introduction of the bill the bill can be printed. Because it is now able to be introduced it will be tabled at the earliest opportunity.
Hereora Dave: Copyright (Parallel Importation of Films and Onus of Proof) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
Hereora Dave: Copyright (Parallel Importation of Films and Onus of Proof) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:612;Page:9403] 
DAVE HEREORA (Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Simich Clem: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
Simich Clem: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:15638] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Firstly there is no obligation on the Minister to take a call or to answer any questions. That is entirely over to the Minister. Officials are in the back room and if the Minister wishes them to be present they can be summoned at the drop of a hat. Other than that the matter is noted but I cannot take it any further.
Hartley Ann: Holidays Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Hartley Ann: Holidays Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:614;Page:10556] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The amendment in the name of the Hon Matt Robson set out on Supplementary Order Paper 174 is out of order.
Vote: Education (Disestablishment of Early Childhood Development Board) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Education (Disestablishment of Early Childhood Development Board) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12141] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 84 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 35 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 7; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Part 1 agreed to.
Robson Matt: Families Commission Bill — Third Reading 
Robson Matt: Families Commission Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:614;Page:10702] 
Hon MATT ROBSON (Deputy Leader—Progressive) 
: 
 Next week a thumping 32-vote majority in Parliament will vote in favour of extending the minimum annual holiday provisions to 4 weeks. We will do that because the majority of this democratically elected and representative Parliament wants to play a positive role in strengthening families. For the Progressive party there is no division between our commitment to strengthening families our campaigns against drugs in our society the campaign for 4 weeks’ leave or the commitment to a strong economic and regional industry development programme. The Progressive party will vote in favour of the Families Commission because our commitment is to making New Zealand a safer more decent and happy place in which to live work and raise families. An absolute majority will say yes to this progressive legislation. We have 62 votes thanks to the cooperation between three parties that are serious about helping to strengthen families and about auditing and monitoring all the work that we do against those criteria.
Barker Rick: Consumer Protection (Definitions of Goods and Services) Bill — In Committee 
Barker Rick: Consumer Protection (Definitions of Goods and Services) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6895] 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister for Courts) 
: I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Tanczos Nandor: Resource Management (Aquaculture Moratorium Extension) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Tanczos Nandor: Resource Management (Aquaculture Moratorium Extension) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:614;Page:10623] 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 On behalf of the Green Party I rise to make a short contribution to the debate on the Resource Management (Aquaculture Moratorium Extension) Amendment Bill and to signal that the Green Party is supporting this legislation. The Green Party thinks that it is very unfortunate that the aquaculture legislation has been held up. Crucially significant issues have got in the way and become a temporary obstacle to progressing the legislation in particular the issues around the foreshore and seabed. Those policy issues have implications in terms of whether we will see another Treaty of Waitangi breach in our modern times as a result of Government policy and what the role of tangata whenua will be in making decisions and participating in making decisions around resource management in that marine environment. 
Those are crucial decisions that have to be resolved by this Government and the aquaculture legislation cannot really progress until those things have been resolved. The moratorium was originally put in place and needed so that a proper regulatory system could be put in place. That system is not yet in place. The Greens believe that there is no alternative but to extend the moratorium until such a system has been properly developed. As I say that is why we are supporting this bill unfortunate though the need may be. 
We understand that the industry is impatient to get on to develop the aquaculture industry and there are huge prospects as Mr Eckhoff has mentioned. We understand that but we do believe that return to the unregulated gold rush that was occurring before the moratorium is simply unacceptable. Mr Eckhoff accepted that there was some gold-rush mentality and he said that the industry has huge potential if it develops as it should. That is the crucial point. There needs to be some regulation to ensure that it develops in a proper way that maintains the balance between the industry developments and the conservation and ecological values. As I said unfortunate though it may be the extension of the moratorium is important. The Green Party will be supporting the bill.
Barker Rick: Animal Products (Dairy Products and Other Matters) Bill — Second Reading 
Barker Rick: Animal Products (Dairy Products and Other Matters) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:624;Page:19017] 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister for Courts) 
: 
 I rise to support the Animal Products (Dairy Products and Other Matters) Bill and I note that it is the Labour-Progressive Government that has introduced this legislation. It is the Labour-Progressive Government that has taken the concerns of the dairy industry on board. Despite the protestations of Opposition members who normally just oppose oppose and oppose we have put forward a very progressive bill that will protect the interests of the dairy industry in the long term. 
We are very concerned about the dairy industry’s well-being. The progress of the dairy industry is vital to the health of the New Zealand economy and this Government takes its obligations very seriously indeed. I think that Opposition parties have been churlish in their criticism of the Government when trying to claim that it does not take the interests of dairy farmers to heart. This bill is ample demonstration that it does. This Government is about action: there was an issue; we have dealt with it; and we will continue to deal with other issues in the future. 
Bill read a second time.
Vote: Supplementary Estimates — Imprest Supply Debate 
Vote: Supplementary Estimates — Imprest Supply Debate 
[Volume:626;Page:21300] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Appropriation (2004/05) Supplementary Estimates) Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 51; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; Maori Party 1. 
Abstentions 8 
Green Party 8. 
Bill read a second time.
Cullen Michael: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
Cullen Michael: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:15651] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 It is certainly not a massive change or a great matter. Why the Opposition wants to waste time at this point becomes a bit meaningless; it does not really make any difference to the proceedings of the House. 
But the issue here is very simple. A closure motion once put applies to all the questions that are subsequent upon that closure motion. There are not two closure motions put on this debate at the end of the bill. We now have this new procedure where the preliminary clauses are taken finally but each is put separately at the conclusion of that debate. The motion moved for closure is the motion on the closure of the debate and that is then put. Subsequently all questions that flow from that closure are put as one question and continue past the stopping time should that arrive. 
I think the ruling you have given is absolutely clear and appropriate. I point out to Opposition members that if the Speaker is recalled I think they will find it will be the Assistant Speaker but I am quite sure that the able advice of the Clerk of the House will lead to confirmation of your absolutely correct decision Mr Chairperson.
Donnelly Brian: Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4) — Second Reading 
Donnelly Brian: Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4) — Second Reading 
[Volume:624;Page:19598] 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
: 
 I concur with what Mr Prebble is saying. It may very well be that that is the rule when it comes to a personal vote because that is certainly the understanding that I have. If it would make it easier New Zealand First is quite happy to go through the leave provision. If it is unnecessary all we ask for is that our vote be changed in accordance with our will. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: That is not necessary. The question is as I said that the motion be agreed to. All those in favour—
Cullen Michael: Budget Statement — Procedure 
Cullen Michael: Budget Statement — Procedure 
[Volume:608;Page:5773] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I hereby present the Budget 2003 Speech the Fiscal Strategy Report and Economic Fiscal Update (B.2) and (B.3) the Estimates of Appropriations for the Government of New Zealand for the year ending 30 June 2004 (B.5) and the Departmental Forecast Reports and Statements of Intent 2003/2004. I move  
That those papers be published 
. 
Motion agreed to.
Carter John: Points of Order — Presentation of Report of Privileges Committee 
Carter John: Points of Order — Presentation of Report of Privileges Committee 
[Volume:610;Page:7636] 
JOHN CARTER (Senior Whip—NZ National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have listened to the comments made by a number of members with regard to this issue and in particular to the concern that was expressed by the Hon Roger Sowry and others in respect of the interpretation that may be put upon the fact that we are to debate the report on the next sitting day and that you will delay your decision in the meantime until that debate has taken place. Therefore the possible interpretation by some is that you may be waiting until the Government seeks time to pass legislation to suspend the Electoral Act in order to change the law in whatever way the Government wishes to in the bill that it will bring in. We have not seen that bill yet. I wonder whether it is appropriate for us therefore—so that we do not put you in a position where it could be seen that you are perhaps at risk in that regard—to have the debate pretty much immediately so that the House can debate the report— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: You can seek leave to do that. 
JOHN CARTER 
: I am just about to do so but I wanted to explain why that is. If we debate the report that would therefore enable you to make your decision without any bias and without the complication of any pending legislation. Accordingly I seek leave for the debate on the Privileges Committee’s report to be held immediately after question time has concluded. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is. I am getting to the point now where I want to move on. The points of order are becoming repetitious. However to be fair to Dr Smith I note that he has not had a point of order. I will allow him one.
Robertson H V Ross: Sittings of the House 
Robertson H V Ross: Sittings of the House 
[Volume:618;Page:14157] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: There is agreement.
Tisch Lindsay: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
Tisch Lindsay: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
[Volume:623;Page:18279] 
LINDSAY TISCH (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 The member is correct that when the House rose for the dinner break there were points of order and Mr Tanczos was speaking at the time. It was our expectation that David Carter would in fact continue his speech after the dinner break but when the Speaker left the House and walked out into the lobby he said that the time had expired and that Mr Carter would not be speaking again. We have a situation where we have points of order which is acknowledged. Mr Carter was speaking when the points of order were taken. The House rose and Mr Carter was told that his time was up. The points of order had not been ruled on. Now Mr Tanczos is asking for an apology or for the comment to be withdrawn when Mr Carter has been told that his time was already up and has left the House. 
That is the situation as I see it. It is an unfortunate position. We did not have this matter resolved before the dinner break and David Carter is not returning to the House—not because of anything that might be transpiring now but simply because he was told his time was up. He will not be returning after the dinner break. That is how we see it Madam Speaker and I would be interested in your ruling. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I thank Mr Tisch and Mr Tanczos. I heard the interchange. Mr Carter had 5 seconds remaining so he could have come back. I think it is fair to rule that the member should withdraw and apologise which he can still do the next time he comes to the House. So I would rule that the member be asked to withdraw and apologise. Mr Tanczos has taken offence and has expressed his view on the matter. That is my ruling.
Tizard Judith: New Zealand Guardian Trust Company Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Tizard Judith: New Zealand Guardian Trust Company Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:21188] 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Labour—Auckland Central) 
: 
 I move  
That the New Zealand Guardian Trust Company Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
. I introduced this private bill as the local member of Parliament for the area that covers the head office of this organisation—Auckland Central. I do so on behalf of the New Zealand Guardian Trust Co. Ltd which has its head office in my electorate. 
Briefly this bill amends the New Zealand Guardian Trust Company Act 1982 to expressly authorise Guardian Trust to transact business with Promina Group Ltd and Promina’s subsidiaries and associated companies to validate any business transacted with such companies on or after the commencement of the principal Act until the commencement of the bill as an Act and to ensure that the principal Act accurately reflects Promina’s ownership of Guardian Trust. 
As previously noted the Commerce Committee has recommended by majority with only minor technical amendments that the bill be passed. It has also reported that the statements in the preamble have been proved to its satisfaction. Once again I take the opportunity to thank the Commerce Committee and the House for their work on this bill. I commend the bill to the House.
Stewart Barbara: Medicines (Specified Biotechnical Procedures)  Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Stewart Barbara: Medicines (Specified Biotechnical Procedures)  Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:625;Page:20594] 
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to support the Medicines (Specified Biotechnical Procedures) Amendment Bill. New Zealand First believes that there are too many unknowns to proceed with xenotransplantation at this stage and that this moratorium needs to be extended to 31 December 2006 until further research can be carried out. 
Although we want to provide lifesaving solutions to New Zealanders we believe it is wiser to ensure that medical procedures like xenotransplantation provide the best possible outcomes for everyone. The countries that we like to compare ourselves with such as Australia Britain and Canada also have moratoriums or very strict guidelines imposed upon the clinical trials for xenotransplantation. We find it unacceptable to rush in when neither the knowledge exists nor the structures are in place at this point in time in New Zealand to assist patients with any problems or challenges that they may experience after xenotransplantation. Even our closest neighbours like Australia would be unable to help us in this particular instance. The risk has to be weighed against possible benefits to recipients. Studies at this point in time are inadequate and they do not counterbalance the potential risks that are involved. 
Human trials do not appear to be totally justified at the present. We even have discussions over which animals will be used for xenotransplantation. I quote from the Health Canada fact-sheet: “While it may seem logical to choose animals that are genetically similar to humans such as apes or baboons it is becoming clear that more distant mammals may be preferred. Pigs have been viewed as the preferred choice of source animal due to the fact that they are inexpensive and easy to breed have relatively large litters have organs that are about the right size and may confer less risk of infection to humans than non-human primates.” 
Even this area is not clear to scientists at the present. There is a lot of ongoing discussion about the whole topic. We know already that medical science uses animal parts for various therapeutic reasons such as replacement heart valves from pigs. These products are chemically treated and they are not functional living tissue. This distinguishes them from the various organs used for xenotransplantation. We believe that the risks at this point need to be resolved. There are a lot of issues too that need to be resolved to a far greater degree than they are at present. We need to be sure that the technology does not have an increased risk of transmission of a wide range of diseases including viral bacterial and other infections known to occur in the source animals. We do not want the risk of a new infection jumping the species barrier. So until the many issues are resolved we believe that the moratorium should remain. We support the bill.
Brown Peter: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Brown Peter: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:612;Page:9095] 
PETER BROWN (Senior Whip—NZ First) 
: 
 I seek leave to table a full list of the tax increases. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that list. Is there any objection? There is.
Hunt Jonathan: Voting — Correction 
Hunt Jonathan: Voting — Correction 
[Volume:610;Page:7553] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: On the vote on the first reading of the Railways Bill on 31 July the United Future party was recorded as voting against the bill when in fact it voted for it. The corrected result of the vote is therefore Ayes 109 Noes 8.
Vote: Corrections Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Corrections Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:13028] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 78 be agreed to: 
to omit subclause (2).
Hunt Jonathan: Sale of Liquor Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Hunt Jonathan: Sale of Liquor Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12348] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is therefore sought accordingly and to emphasise to people what that means it is one debate but when there is a vote Mr Dunne’s amendment relating to clubs and clause 14 are to be taken as separate votes.
Vote: Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Sitting date: 14 December 2004. Volume:622;Page:17873. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 as amended 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 9. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to.
Prebble Richard: Speaker’s Statements — Ringing of the Bell 
Prebble Richard: Speaker’s Statements — Ringing of the Bell 
[Volume:608;Page:5457] 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have listened to what you said. I am not sure whether you have given the correct impression to members. You said that the bell was to be rung for example at 6 o’clock. In fact one of the reasons the Standing Orders Committee wants the bell rung is the situation we had last Thursday when most members had actually left and the House was carrying on in session—which I say was unparliamentary—but members did not know that. In that particular situation the bell will not be rung at 6 p.m. will it? It will be rung at a different time—in that case I think it was 6.15 p.m.—so MPs will know that on a Thursday they do not jump in their taxis to go to the airport until they have heard the bell.
Scott Lynda: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Scott Lynda: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:614;Page:10277] 
4.  
Dr LYNDA SCOTT (National—Kaikoura) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Does she know whether the Health and Disability Commissioner is considering reopening patient files involving a Tauranga general surgeon; if so why? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Health) 
: 
 I am advised by the Health and Disability Commissioner that he is currently assessing requests by two families to have their cases reopened following publicity of a previous case involving Mr Breeze of Tauranga. 
Dr Lynda Scott 
: When did she become aware of the high level of anxiety about the competence of surgeon Mr Ian Breeze and why are there no restrictions on his practising certificate despite a series of patient complications deaths and competency reviews? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I became aware of a problem with Mr Breeze when the first case was made public in the news media I think in September—a case that went back to December 1999. I cannot speak for whether there are restrictions on his practice. 
Dr Lynda Scott 
: Why did the director of proceedings urge the Medical Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal to find Mr Breeze guilty of the higher charge of disgraceful conduct yet the tribunal decided to only fine Mr Breeze finding him guilty of professional misconduct because “the decision is primarily based on the grounds that as far as the tribunal is aware the events focused upon in this case are a one-off series of events” when in fact the death of Lionel Crowley is just the tip of the iceberg? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I cannot answer those questions. I do not know why the Medical Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal made that decision because it is independent of the Government. It is independent of any Government under any political hue. The tribunal makes those decisions and they are not made under political influence. 
Dr Lynda Scott 
: As the Minister is always saying: “The buck stops with me.” why would she not see Mrs Crowley when Mrs Crowley asked to see her on 28 September 2001 to discuss the death of her husband Lionel and the serious concerns she had about a system that allowed this tragic series of events to occur? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: A process has been put in place to deal with any such tragic event in New Zealand—that is the independent Health and Disability Commissioner. I always advise that people who have problems with the health system and want them investigated should go to the independent commissioner. The Minister cannot influence decisions made by the Health and Disability Commissioner. The House in setting up the position of Health and Disability Commissioner decided that those decisions ought to be independent of political influence.
Brownlee Gerry: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Brownlee Gerry: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:16964] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 Well it depends. If one is a trained seal being compared with the Labour Party probably would have been offensive. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: It was taken as an offensive remark. Would the member like to withdraw and apologise. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: For making the comment: “Well done the trained seals.” I withdraw and apologise.
Vote: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8227] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 30 
New Zealand National 23; ACT New Zealand 7. 
Noes 81 
Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 8; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Rodney Hide to clause 251 be agreed to: 
to omit this clause and substitute the following clause: 
251 Duration of Licence 
(1)Section 53 of the principal Act is amended by repealing subsection (1) and substituting the following subsection: 
(1)Subject to  
subsections (2) and (3) 
 every licence unless sooner cancelled under  
section 83 
 of this Act continues in force for a period of 1 year and then expires. 
(2)Section 53 of the principal Act is amended by inserting after subsection (3) the following subsection: 
(4)Subject to  
section 50(7) 
 in the case of a licence to operate a pharmacy granted to an applicant who is an individual the named  
licensee  
shall be deemed to include any of those persons mentioned in  
section 50(6) 
.
Chadwick Steve: New Zealand Trade and Enterprise Bill — Third Reading 
Chadwick Steve: New Zealand Trade and Enterprise Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:6409] 
STEVE CHADWICK (NZ Labour—Rotorua) 
: 
 I rise to support this bill. It is a wonderful next step from the Industry New Zealand Bill that I was involved with on the Commerce Committee when we decided that we did need to move to this next step. 
The rhetoric of the Opposition members astonishes me. They say they want the Government out but they also want the Government to get more markets and help with trade negotiations. One needs to be consistent about what one wants. This bill is consistent. It is the next step in terms of developing a strong rigorous body to manage our overseas trade markets and maximise our opportunities on the world stage. It is a great piece of legislation.
Hunt Jonathan: Civil Union Bill — First Reading 
Hunt Jonathan: Civil Union Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:618;Page:13932] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Before Mr Brown starts his speech I am advised that there will be two 5-minute speeches.
Member Sworn 
Member Sworn 
[Volume:610;Page:7343] 
Member Sworn 
Moana Lynore Mackey was presented to the Speaker made the affirmation required by law and took her seat in the House.
Cosgrove Clayton: Future Directions (Working for Families) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
Cosgrove Clayton: Future Directions (Working for Families) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:13513] 
CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I just clarify for the member that I was not referring to Katherine Rich at all. I would not do so. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I tell the member that the point should have been raised at the time. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: The member just said he was not referring to Katherine Rich. The question is then: whom was he referring to? When the words “tax evasion” are used it implicates somebody. In this case the implication was against Deborah Coddington.
Donald Rod: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Donald Rod: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:609;Page:6247] 
ROD DONALD (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. We submitted this question to the Prime Minister because we believed that the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet is coordinating the Government’s sustainable development programme. We wonder how the Minister for the Environment can respond to such a wide-ranging question and we ask whether we can assume that the Minister for the Environment will be in a position to answer all our questions if this question No. 1 is referred to that Minister. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The question was transferred on the ground that the Minister has some delegated authority which was set out in the delegations published.
Vote: Television New Zealand Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Television New Zealand Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:606;Page:3740] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment to 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 to the amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 57 in the name of the Hon Steve Maharey to clause 2 be agreed to.
Hartley Ann: Civil Union Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Hartley Ann: Civil Union Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:622;Page:17618] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The amendment to clause 2(2) set out on Supplementary Order Paper 314 in the name of Richard Worth is out of order because it is inconsistent with previous decisions of the Committee.
Mackey Moana: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Mackey Moana: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:625;Page:20369] 
12.  
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
 to the  
Associate Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage 
: What is the Government doing to support New Zealand music? 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Associate Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage) 
: 
 In 2000 we established the New Zealand Music Industry Commission and further funded New Zealand On Air to facilitate the growth of the New Zealand music industry. In 2004 we passed the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra Act. The Pathways to Arts and Cultural Employment programme also supports key New Zealand musicians such as a number of the members of the band Goldenhorse. This month is New Zealand Music Month—the fifth celebration of New Zealand music and musicians which goes on for a whole month. As a result of the Government’s support New Zealanders are now hearing and buying more New Zealand music than ever before. More New Zealand musicians are making sustainable careers and contributing to economic and regional growth through record sales and royalties here and overseas as well as developing our New Zealand culture. 
Moana Mackey 
: What is the Government doing to promote the export of New Zealand music? 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD 
: In April this year as a result of the New Zealand Music Industry Export Development Group’s report  
Creating Heat 
 the Government announced additional funding of $5.4 million to support the export growth of the New Zealand music industry. That includes $2 million to the New Zealand Music Industry Commission over 3 years and $3.4 million to New Zealand On Air. This comprehensive package of support aims to build a strong sustainable music industry with good access to export markets representing significant Government support and the building of conditions for growth in the sector.
Vote: Land Transport Management Bill — Second Reading 
Vote: Land Transport Management Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:612;Page:9336] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Land Transport Management Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Bill read a second time.
Turner Judy: Health (Screening Programmes) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Turner Judy: Health (Screening Programmes) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:614;Page:10327] 
JUDY TURNER (United Future) 
: 
 When I was first speaking in this debate some weeks ago I referred to the fact that cervical cancer is one of the most preventable of all cancers but that as a nation we do need to reduce the number of women who die each year as a result of cervical cancer. I talked about how the screening programme was not a 100 percent accurate diagnostic programme and in fact that it was heavily reliant upon the role of evaluators to keep the programme safe and reliable for all New Zealand women. So who are these essential evaluators? They are fully qualified health professionals who are subject to all the constraints and requirements of other health professionals. They are in reality the second opinion that can double-check the records of those most at risk to ensure their safety. 
I am hugely concerned about the alarmist communication regarding the privacy of primary-health records. Women’s health advocates would be more credible if they fully investigated exactly what is proposed in this regard before scaremongering. General practitioner records are already audited without the permission of patients as part of the professional review process of general practitioners. The evaluators of this programme will be health professionals who can be disciplined by their own disciplinary board if information is misused. Of the tens of thousands of women on the programme several hundred may be uplifted for evaluation purposes. I have been told that there is something like a 0.03 percent chance of having one’s files checked if one has no abnormality on one’s smear and a slightly higher chance if abnormalities are present. So the choice is between privacy and health safety and I urge those contributing to the debate to be wise about being alarmist and possibly contributing to the failure of this programme which is absolutely essential to the health outcomes of New Zealand women. 
The Health Committee weighed this issue extremely carefully. Even in the last little while cross-party meetings have been facilitated by the Minister to get last-minute concerns addressed. Such actions have demonstrated a commitment to make this legislation work and to ensure that women’s lives are saved from this very treatable disease. 
In conclusion I commend all my colleagues on the select committee for working so well and in a truly parliamentary way on this vital screening programme. In that regard I specifically mention the chair Steve Chadwick Dr Lynda Scott and Heather Roy who bring essential experience as health professionals. They have been extremely solutions-focused. I commend the bill to the House.
Smith Nick: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Smith Nick: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:608;Page:5469] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (NZ National—Nelson) 
: 
 I set down this question to the Minister in a very similar but slightly different form. I notice that the Minister is not present. I seek leave of the House for the question to be deferred till tomorrow so that the Minister responsible might answer it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought accordingly. Is there any objection? There is. Please ask the question—[ 
Interruption 
] I want the person who made that interjection to stand withdraw and apologise. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I stand withdraw and apologise. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I will withdraw and apologise too. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member is very lucky indeed not to be asked to leave.
Vote: Parole (Extended Supervision) and Sentencing Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Parole (Extended Supervision) and Sentencing Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:618;Page:14183] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 22 
New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 97 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Stephen Franks to clause 17 be agreed to: 
to omit this clause.
Wilson Margaret: Points of Order — Questions for Oral Answer—Deferment 
Wilson Margaret: Points of Order — Questions for Oral Answer—Deferment 
[Volume:625;Page:20525] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: They were two different points.
Catchpole Brent: Gambling Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Catchpole Brent: Gambling Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8466] 
BRENT CATCHPOLE (NZ First) 
: 
 I want to speak to clause 4 which refers to the definitions. We heard the Government member—I think it was Dianne Yates—mention the ability of local territorial authorities to control gambling activities in their areas. I point out to the member that those authorities have control only up until they issue a licence. Once the licence is issued they no longer have control over what happens. If they suddenly discover that gambling is out of control in their areas they cannot do anything about it. 
I also want to bring up the issue of “corporate societies” and this “one society”. It seems to me that the bill is forcing many organisations to separate and call themselves individual societies—an individual from one can step aside and create another one. I guess that defeats the whole purpose of the bill and I think it is an issue that the Government has overlooked. 
With regard to the description of “casino” this bill is trying to remove the small casino operations—the ones that are basically pokie bars or pokie parlours—by removing that name from them but they will simply come up with another name and continue in operation perhaps under the name of “pokie parlour” or “pokie gamblers”. They will come up with an alternative so the bill will not stop a great deal there. 
 Another issue I would like to look at is the description of housie in Supplementary Order Paper 132. It touches only briefly on the process of housie and I suggest that the officials take a closer look at that provision because the definitions do not set out many of the rules and ways of restricting that particular form of gambling. In reality there are a tremendous number of rorts and means of bypassing the rules in housie and I suggest that the bill will not cover the rorts and schemes that attempt to get around the so-called limits on the housie system. 
Finally I refer to clause 7A “Secretary may seek information to assess influence”. Is that influence with regard to management and employment or does it include the influence of patrons within a casino and gambling operation? Although patrons are not supposed to have any influence on the running of things there are schemes that have an enormous amount of influence within a casino or a gaming house. It is an area that I think needs to be re-examined and looked at more closely.
Gallagher Martin: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Gallagher Martin: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:611;Page:8836] 
11.  
MARTIN GALLAGHER (NZ Labour—Hamilton West) 
 to the  
Minister for Courts 
: What new technology is the Department for Courts going to use to assist fines defaulters to pay their fines? 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister for Courts) 
: 
 The department will be trialling text messaging to fines defaulters between November this year and January 2004. The trial will involve collection staff sending payment and action-day reminders by text to fines defaulters who have text-capable mobile phones. This group is predominantly male aged between 15 and 30 years and they owe the greatest amount of overdue fines usually drivers with licence offences. Texting those people will be a much more proactive method taken by the department. 
Martin Gallagher 
: Why is this form of messaging expected to be successful with this group? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: Market research shows that a high percentage of people in the 15-30 year age group use their mobile phone as their primary communication medium. New Zealand has 2 million mobile phones and text messaging is one of the main forms of communication. It has been described by the research as more intimate and personal than other forms of communication and more likely to evoke a response. Some day I expect that people will be able to pay their fines by telephone. 
Ron Mark 
: Does the Minister stand by his department’s stated strategic direction for 2000-05 “to help make New Zealand a more just and a safer place through the promotion of law-abiding behaviour by ensuring compliance with monetary orders”; if he does still stand by that statement can he then explain to the House how a female driver can between May 2000 and August 2003 be permitted to rack up a total of 60 traffic infringements totalling a massive $22712 in fines—as detailed in the court documents that I am holding—without ending up in jail? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: Yes I do stand by the statement and yes I do acknowledge that there is an issue about people racking up fines and there being no central place to collect them immediately. There are delays from when the fines are imposed by the police. The police try to collect fines themselves the fines are put on to the court and there are other authorities that can put fines on. It is an issue that I am looking at. I would hope to have an answer for the House within the next 6 months as to what we can do to improve the process.
Tisch Lindsay: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
Tisch Lindsay: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8064] 
LINDSAY TISCH (Junior Whip—NZ National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. We have had just 30 minutes of debate on the title. We started at 20 to 5 and finished at 10 past 5. The debate on the title is very important. It sets the scene for the rest of the debate and I want to register my concern that we heard only six speakers on the title. A number of National members have been seeking the call right from the start. It is not as though they just came in at the last minute. We had members who were seeking the call and I was one of them. As we move through the next part I would like to think that you will be fair and equitable and give as many members as possible the opportunity to speak on this very very important legislation. It contains 272 pages and I think it needs much closer scrutiny. When we have speakers who are preparing to go for the call who are bringing forward new material— 
Government Members 
: New material! 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: How can they say it is not new material when there have been only six speakers? My point is that it is very important that we give due consideration to the speakers who have competence in this area. We have a doctor who was seeking the call who understands this issue and did not get a call on the title. I am asking that you give consideration to this matter. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I thank the member for his comments. As he knows he cannot relitigate the closure. I remind him that the title debate is a debate just on the title. I remind him also that this bill has been to a select committee. That is very clear. I assure the member that the points he makes have been noted.
Cullen Michael: Points of Order — Minister of Maori Affairs—Answer to Question 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Cullen Michael: Points of Order — Minister of Maori Affairs—Answer to Question 
[Sitting date: 19 June 2003. Volume:609;Page:6415. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I suggest that members are now starting to trifle yet again with the point of order procedure. You have clearly ruled on this matter. Answers have been provided. I can assure the member that the Minister was not trying to avoid giving answers. The information was not available in time. Every effort was made by the Minister to get an answer in time. The convention of this House is very clear: when a supplementary answer is given later it is given to the member who asked the question.
Vote: Corrections Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Vote: Corrections Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:617;Page:13145] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 3 be agreed to. 
Ayes 54 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 6; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Schedule 3 not agreed to. 
The question was put that new schedule 3 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 213 in the name of the Hon Paul Swain be agreed to.
Hunt Jonathan: Foreshore and Seabed Bill Resource Management (Foreshore and Seabed) Amendment Bill — Third Readings 
Hunt Jonathan: Foreshore and Seabed Bill Resource Management (Foreshore and Seabed) Amendment Bill — Third Readings 
[Volume:621;Page:17209] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The last call will be split into two 5-minute speeches.
Swain Paul: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members Question No. 7 to Minister  
Swain Paul: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members Question No. 7 to Minister  
[Volume:620;Page:15371] 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 I seek leave to table Ministry of Justice figures on prison forecasts for the years 2000 2002 and 2003. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Cullen Michael: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Procedure Referral to Health Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled  Speaker Recalled In Committee Procedure 
Cullen Michael: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Procedure Referral to Health Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled  Speaker Recalled In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:613;Page:10006] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 The question that was put was that the question be now put. The main question that that referred to was that Part 3 stand part. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I want to make a ruling on this matter. The vote on the closure was in progress. The Committee must continue and decide that vote. The vote was a closure. After it is determined the remaining votes on Part 3 must be decided and then the Committee reports. The question now is that Part 3 stand part. As many of that opinion will say “Aye” the contrary “No”—