edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Turner Judy: Health (Screening Programmes) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Turner Judy: Health (Screening Programmes) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:613;Page:9916] 
JUDY TURNER (United Future) 
: 
 I stand on behalf of United Future to speak to the second reading of the national cervical-screening programmes legislation. Cervical cancer is one of the most preventable of all cancers. Early detection of abnormal cell changes can result in effective treatment and in New Zealand it is estimated that between 220 and 240 women develop cancer of the cervix each year and that 70 to 80 die from it. That is quite a high rate compared with other OECD countries. In fact Professor Skegg told us that we were the sixth highest of the OECD countries in the incidence of death from cervical cancer. 
The cervical smear test is a screening test not a diagnostic test. If abnormalities are detected then further tests are needed to get more accurate diagnoses. False negatives and false positives are not uncommon and that is why it is vital if this screening programme is to be successful for women that women are diligent in having regular smears and that the screening programme is stringently monitored. For this programme to be effective it requires New Zealand women to be committed to the common good. If a particular pathologist or smear-tester is not competent or a laboratory is not protecting slides properly or follow-up is inconsistent in some way then those failures will only be picked up by thoroughly examining all their work not just one or two results. 
The Health Committee worked extremely responsibly on this issue and I would like to commend Steve Chadwick for the way she chaired this process and also the committee members who in general did not allow ideology to get in the way of women’s safety. The decision therefore to include the accessing of the appropriate primary health information of programme participants by evaluators is essential. The question I ask myself is whether I am happy for programme evaluators to double triple or quadruple-check my smear results if it will help save somebody else’s life—because that is what the issue is about. The answer is yes I am. 
Debate interrupted.
Cullen Michael: Business of Select Committees — Membership 
Cullen Michael: Business of Select Committees — Membership 
[Volume:606;Page:3975] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek leave for Sue Kedgley to be a member of the Commerce Committee for the purpose of its consideration of any broadcasting legislation but without the right to vote on any question before the committee. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There appears to be none.
Hutchison Paul: Dog Control Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Hutchison Paul: Dog Control Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:613;Page:9867] 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 Indeed clauses 3 and 4 are among the very important practical things the bill does. The Local Government and Environment Committee learnt that enforcement and the keeping of records around the country were extremely variable and that several territorial authorities had far more optimal keeping of records and enforcement than others did as the Minister of Local Government said. By ensuring that the territorial authority must report annually we are putting in a very important discipline that will allow benchmarking throughout the country. It is a great shame that we have so many territorial authorities. Hopefully the next National Government which comes into power in 2005 will attend to that. But despite that there is no doubt that this part of the bill will allow benchmarking throughout the territorial authorities in New Zealand so that those territorial authorities on the margins can be easily identified and brought up to speed in terms of ensuring that best-practice guidelines are adhered to. 
One of the other useful things that emanated from the select committee and the submissions was that it was appropriate that a publication of best-practice guidelines be available to all territorial authorities so that they could use it as the blueprint for how they would respond. Undoubtedly it seems to me that that is a much more democratic and voluntary way to impose standards of dog control than having highly prescriptive legislation as is implied by the microchipping aspect which the Minister is so hell-bent on imposing. 
 Certainly these two clauses clauses 3 and 4 of Part 1 are key to ensuring we have good standards of record-keeping in New Zealand. After all one of the difficulties of quantifying whether we have serious dog attacks in New Zealand has been the fact that there has been such variable record-keeping. The research unit in Dunedin has done a very assiduous job in that area and I understand that in the order of 300 serious dog attacks per year in New Zealand result in people requiring hospitalisation but many thousands of other dog attacks go unreported. Clauses 3 and 4 will indeed add that discipline by ensuring across New Zealand that there are far better standards that far better records are kept and that the territorial authorities that are on the margins—of which there are many—are pinpointed. 
I hope we will have ministerial oversight that ensures those records are kept and I hope the Minister will take a call in a moment or two to explain to Parliament how he as the Minister at present from 1 December will ensure that this part of the bill is followed and adhered to. I believe that it is practical and worthwhile.
Vote: Prisoners' and Victims' Claims Bill — Second Reading 
Vote: Prisoners' and Victims' Claims Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:20592] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Bill be now read a second time 
. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 51; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 59 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; Green Party 9; Maori Party 1. 
Bill read a second time.
Locke Keith: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Locke Keith: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:626;Page:21639] 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I seek your guidance on how you are will conduct the division of calls in this debate because I express a concern on behalf of the Green Party that in Part 1 we received only one call. Although in terms of the size of the party in Parliament there may be an argument for that number in this particular bill we are the only party against it. 
There are three other factors that I think are relevant to the division of the calls. First we are moving amendments and I was not given a chance in Part 1 to explain my amendments. I was not given enough time to do so. Secondly it is not that the contributions of the Green Party have been ignored in the debate—in fact a number of speakers in favour of the bill criticised either the Green Party or myself or both. I think if we are to have fairness in this Parliament that has to be taken into account. Thirdly I do not think that it was taken into account in the debate on Part 1 because people were voting on an amendment that had not been properly explained to them.
Franks Stephen: Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Franks Stephen: Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:627;Page:22089] 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 That would be more decorous and I therefore amend my request for leave along the lines suggested by Mr Donnelly. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. It is actually at the discretion of the Speaker too. But certainly if members agree to that that is a quite proper way to do it. Is there any objection? There is not.
Hughes Darren: Education (Disestablishment of Early Childhood Development Board) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Hughes Darren: Education (Disestablishment of Early Childhood Development Board) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12148] 
DARREN HUGHES (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Chadwick Steve: Television New Zealand Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Chadwick Steve: Television New Zealand Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:606;Page:3755] 
STEVE CHADWICK (NZ Labour—Rotorua) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Hartley Ann: Care of Children Bill — Instruction to Committee Procedure In Committee 
Hartley Ann: Care of Children Bill — Instruction to Committee Procedure In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:16643] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The debate on Part 2 includes debate on schedule 1.
Brownlee Gerry: Tabling of Documents — Electoral Matters Bill Supplementary Order Paper 
Brownlee Gerry: Tabling of Documents — Electoral Matters Bill Supplementary Order Paper 
[Volume:621;Page:16447] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I seek leave to table a document known as PCO5571a/4—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Could you please repeat that. I did not hear it because there was noise made. I am about to send some people out for the afternoon. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I seek leave to table a document known as PCO5571a/4. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave has been sought. Does the member want to give any further details about it? Leave has been declined. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I will try again. I seek leave to table a Supplementary Order Paper on the Electoral Matters Bill known as PCO5571a/4. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that. Is there any objection? There is.
Duynhoven Harry: Civil Aviation Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee 
Duynhoven Harry: Civil Aviation Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee 
[Volume:615;Page:11242] 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Associate Minister of Transport) 
: 
 I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Civil Aviation Amendment Bill that it take the bill part by part. 
Motion agreed to.
Dyson Ruth: Social Security (Long-term Residential Care) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Dyson Ruth: Social Security (Long-term Residential Care) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:622;Page:17410] 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for Senior Citizens) 
: 
 I move  
That the Social Security (Long-term Residential Care) Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
. The bill significantly increases the amount of assets that our older people requiring residential care can retain. The New Zealand population is expected to age significantly in the coming decades. This is likely to increase demand for funding for aged-care services. So to address this issue in a fiscally responsible manner a staged approach to reduce the impact of asset testing has been chosen. From 1 July next year the asset threshold for single people will rise from $15000 to $150000. That new threshold also applies to couples with both partners in care. Asset testing will be completely removed for people aged 50 to 64 from the same time. 
The Government considers that it is legitimate to expect people to contribute towards some of the costs of their care because those costs would need to be met while they are living at home. As such the income test is retained. From 1 July next year residents will be required to pay only the district health board contract price for rest-home care in their local area for the basic package of services. However as is the current situation residents will be able to pay additional fees for services that are clearly additional to the contract. The total cost of the changes is forecast at $110 million in the first year of implementation. This figure will rise substantially over time reflecting the $10000 annual increases to the asset thresholds and the growing number of people in our older population. The Government has made separate provision for the additional funding to pay for these changes. This funding will not reduce the amount currently allocated to disability and health services. 
The bill sets out the residential care subsidy scheme in a clear and comprehensive manner and includes aspects of the income and asset-testing regime that are currently found only in administrative policy and practice. That includes processes for needs assessment financial means assessment and matters such as gifting allowances and the residential care loan scheme. The changes provided for in the bill will make substantial progress towards fair and affordable policies for older people who need long-term care while retaining an appropriate mechanism for older people to contribute to those costs of care they would expect to pay if living in their own homes. 
In conclusion I thank particularly the health officials who have worked so hard on this legislation but also the members of the select committee for their valuable contribution towards its progress.
Carter John: Retirements — John Lindell O’Sullivan 
Carter John: Retirements — John Lindell O’Sullivan 
[Volume:607;Page:4504] 
JOHN CARTER (NZ National—Northland) 
: 
 On behalf of the National Party I want to join with the Deputy Prime Minister and to agree with the statements that he has made. One of the missions that John O’Sullivan had in his life as General Manager of the Parliamentary Service was to keep members of Parliament out of the media. I know he took it personally whenever that was not quite achieved. There were one or two occasions when unfortunately it did not happen. However I know that he took that as a very serious part of his job. Indeed I am sure I am not the only whip who had a phone call from Mr O’Sullivan from to time to time saying he just wanted to draw my attention to an issue that I might want to debate with a particular person. I must say that was very helpful. In many instances it achieved the ambition Mr O’Sullivan had of not seeing us in the media. 
One of the frustrations there was in dealing with Mr O’Sullivan was that when people raised a matter with him and they thought they were just starting to win he would then remind them of course that the rules were not his rules but those of the Parliamentary Service Commission of which I and others were members and that it had made the jolly rules in the first place. I must say that that was always very frustrating. However if I can say this again—in breaching the Standing Orders—I still think that John O’Sullivan was wrong not to agree with that rental car thing that finally I had to pay for myself. On behalf of the National Party and myself—and indeed I am sure all the members of the House—I conclude by saying that we wish John O’Sullivan very well in his retirement. We know we will see him around from time to time anyway. He also has a number of projects that he wishes to undertake in his private life and we hope that those all go very well for him and that he enjoys the time with his family as he hopes to do.
Vote: Care of Children Bill — Instruction to Committee Procedure In Committee 
Vote: Care of Children Bill — Instruction to Committee Procedure In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:16669] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 60 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8; Maori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Motion agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Before I put the question there are a number of amendments and they will be held as a personal vote. A personal vote will be held. Ring the bells. Before we do that as I read out before we started in accordance with the leave of the House questions on amendments to Part 2 are to be taken in the following order: Supplementary Order Paper 294 in the name of Murray Smith Supplementary Order Paper 292 in the name of Judith Collins and Supplementary Order Paper 293 in the name of Judith Collins.
Barnett Tim: Prostitution Reform Bill — In Committee 
Barnett Tim: Prostitution Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6177] 
TIM BARNETT (NZ Labour—Christchurch Central) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. In line with discussions that took place at the Business Committee I seek leave at the conclusion of the debate on Parts 1 to 3 and the schedule for voting to be on the basis of the amendments as arranged and ordered on the paper that has been circulated to members copies of which are on the Table. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There appears to be none.
Fair Trading Amendment Bill (No 3) — Instruction to CommitteeCWH 
Fair Trading Amendment Bill (No 3) — Instruction to CommitteeCWH 
[Volume:607;Page:4933] 
Fair Trading Amendment Bill (No 3) 
Instruction to CommitteeCWH 
Hon MARGARET WILSON (Attorney-General) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Consumer Affairs 
: 
 I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Fair Trading Amendment Bill (No 3) that it take the bill part by part and consider any schedules as one question 
. 
Motion agreed to.
Robson Matt: Motions — Michael Campbell—2005 US Open 
Robson Matt: Motions — Michael Campbell—2005 US Open 
[Volume:627;Page:21738] 
Hon MATT ROBSON (Deputy Leader—Progressive) 
: 
 The Progressive Party also like other political parties would like to bask in the glory of the talent and hard work of Michael Campbell. We hope like other parties that this praise will assist us in our poll ratings! We would like to note further that the designers Charmaine and Dan Love of Kia Kaha Clothing have been duly recognised for what they have done and that many male members of this Parliament wear their ties as do people outside. 
Motion agreed to.
Vote: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8145] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 5 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 69 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 47 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7. 
Part 5 as amended agreed to.
Dunne Peter: Motions — Tsunami Boxing Day—Expression of Condolence 
Dunne Peter: Motions — Tsunami Boxing Day—Expression of Condolence 
[Volume:623;Page:18150] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 United Future joins with others who have spoken this afternoon firstly in expressing deep sorrow and paying tribute to all the countries and individuals who have suffered as a result of the catastrophic unbelievable and horrific tsunami and associated events; and secondly in commending the response of the New Zealand Government and people to this crisis. I make the observation that at times like this very few of the big issues of the day matter as much. Right across the world we have seen a focusing on the affected countries and the needs of the individuals children and families who have been devastated by the disaster. The way in which New Zealanders have opened their hearts through the various relief activities that have been organised is typical of what has been happening around the world. The disaster was one of those events that thankfully occur extraordinarily rarely. For all the rest of us who are shaken by its consequences there is a natural need to respond. I believe that supported by the Government’s activities New Zealanders have done our country proud in our response but that can be little consolation to those who suffer day in and day out and who will have the challenge of rebuilding their countries for many years to come.
Vote: Telecommunications (Interception Capability) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Telecommunications (Interception Capability) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12278] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That this bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 110 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Bill read a second time.
Retirements — Ombudsman—Judge Anand Satyanand 
Retirements — Ombudsman—Judge Anand Satyanand 
[Volume:623;Page:18495] 
Retirements 
Ombudsman—Judge Anand Satyanand 
Hon MARK BURTON (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 It is my privilege and pleasure to move  
That this House noting that Judge Anand Satyanand is retiring as Ombudsman this month place on record its appreciation of his service as an Officer of Parliament since 1995 and as a District Court Judge from 1982 and wish Judge and Mrs Susan Satyanand all the best for the future. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: We agreed in the Business Committee that I would put the motion but that before doing so as the Speaker of Parliament I would be able to say just a couple of words. I want to say this has been a very great privilege—and Mr Satyanand is sitting in the gallery today—and I am very much appreciative of it. I know what a great servant of New Zealand he has been. I know how well he has carried out his duties as an officer of Parliament and I can say that as Speaker I have had only respect and admiration for the work that he has done. 
Motion agreed to.
Yates Dianne: Disabled Persons Employment Promotion (Repeal and Related Matters) Bill — First Reading 
Yates Dianne: Disabled Persons Employment Promotion (Repeal and Related Matters) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:617;Page:13377] 
DIANNE YATES (Labour—Hamilton East) 
: 
 I rise in support of the Disabled Persons Employment Promotion (Repeal and Related Matters) Bill and remind the House that this bill was lobbied for by people with disabilities and that they are looking forward to the promotion of this bill. It does prevent exploitation of people with disabilities. Some of the patronising claptrap I have heard from the Opposition tonight shows that if one is a list MP and does not keep in touch with people in the electorate one loses touch with what the people in the electorate are actually saying they want.
Peck Mark: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Peck Mark: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:615;Page:10956] 
11.  
MARK PECK (Labour—Invercargill) 
 to the  
Minister for Small Business 
: What positive suggestions has he received from the recent series of small-business visits? 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE (Minister for Small Business) 
: 
 Over recent weeks Government members and Ministers have been visiting small businesses across the country. The aim of these visits has been to hear what is really important to New Zealand’s small businesses without the filter of professional lobby groups that purport to represent them. One issue raised by a number of businesses was the option of paying provisional tax at the same time as their regular GST payments. The Government is listening to this taking it seriously and moving to implement it. On this side of the House we believe that the best people to tell us about businesses are those involved in running them. 
Mark Peck 
: In what other ways is the Government communicating directly with New Zealand’s very good small-business sector? 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: Starting here in Wellington tomorrow we will be hosting a series of 24 small-business days around the country. These will provide a forum where small businesses can speak directly with the Government on issues of importance to them so that we may develop policy informed by them and for them. This will allow us to hear what real Kiwi businesses have to say and we will work together on solutions free of the negativity on self-appointed spokesmen of business both inside and outside this House. 
Lindsay Tisch 
: Does the Minister stand by his answer in chat session No. 1 to a question stating that tax revenue is running at 35 percent of gross domestic product and asking when the Government would get real about tax that: “The Government has previously signalled that there will be a movement on tax in the upcoming Budget.”; and how much movement will there be to reduce tax to assist small businesses? 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: As always on behalf of this Government help is on the way and the Minister of Finance will advise members when the Budget is announced. 
Peter Brown 
: Taking note of the exchange rate does the Minister share the view that has been suggested to me by several business people that the best way to have a small business in this country is to start off with a large one? 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: I have not had that advice. 
Paul Adams 
: During the Minister’s visits to small businesses was his attention drawn to the frequently voiced concerns of small to medium sized enterprise owners and operators that the sheer volume of compliance issues being regularly laid down by this Government is stifling initiative consuming too much of their valuable time and resources and most important anti-growth? 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: Quite to the contrary. Compliance issues are always high on the radar of all businesses and are a cost of doing business. More particularly business people are looking at solutions not looking at only problems.
Vote: Aquaculture Reform Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Vote: Aquaculture Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 14 December 2004. Volume:622;Page:17776. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 2 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 83 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 37 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 9; Maori Party 1. 
Clause 2 as amended agreed to.
Cunliffe David: Electricity and Gas Industries Bill — First Reading 
Cunliffe David: Electricity and Gas Industries Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:613;Page:9827] 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of State) 
: 
 I acknowledge that Roger Sowry says he is a novice in energy matters. That perhaps means he is on his way to an “outage” of his very own on these matters. Can I also acknowledge Mark Peck the chairman of the Commerce Committee who along with the Minister will be pursuing the implementation of this legislation. 
I would like to take us back very briefly to the introduction of the previous electricity bill which I had the privilege to chair through the then Commerce Committee. It was based on a very simple idea—as much opportunity for the market as possible and regulation only when necessary. That legislation gave the industry the opportunity over several years to regulate itself by coming up with a package of measures under a Government policy statement—which it has singularly failed to do. In retrospect the industry has failed to do so for a very good reason: the structural differences between the interests of various categories of industry players are such that no matter how well that group was led it was impossible for those players to harmonise. Generators have one set of interests transmission interests have another set and the retail sector has another. That is just in electricity alone without mentioning the problems specific to the gas industry where the market is highly concentrated and there is great uncertainty as to the actual level of the reserves that are still in the ground. 
 So we are being absolutely consistent with our philosophy—that is as much market involvement as possible and regulation only when necessary. Guess what? Regulation is now necessary. The ironic thing is that even the market itself is begging us to do that because it wants to have certainty and clarity. The market knows that having clear direction will save it a lot of uncertainty and compliance costs and will allow it to move forward. 
Above all this country needs energy. This not a university debating society exercise for the benefit of the National Party caucus. We want the lights to stay on. That is why we cannot afford to have another 2 years of dilly-dallying. Let us get this bill passed.
Tisch Lindsay: New Organisms and Other Matters Bill — In Committee 
Tisch Lindsay: New Organisms and Other Matters Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8858] 
LINDSAY TISCH (Junior Whip—NZ National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I cast an incorrect vote. National is voting for the title so that is 20 votes in favour.
Hunt Jonathan: Visitors — Sweden—Committee on the Labour Market 
Hunt Jonathan: Visitors — Sweden—Committee on the Labour Market 
[Volume:619;Page:15309] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing honourable members that members of the Committee on the Labour Market from the Swedish Parliament led by the Chairperson Anders Karlsson are present in the gallery. I am sure members would wish they be welcomed.
Vote: Resource Management and Electricity Legislation Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Resource Management and Electricity Legislation Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:627;Page:22319] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 53 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 8. 
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 Dr Nick Smith to Part 1 be agreed to: 
to insert the following new clause: 
90ABTransitional powers to enable a further round of consultation on Waitaki Water Allocation Placements 
1The Waitaki Board must undertake a further round of consultation on requiring water allocation placement taking into account amendments made in this Act. 
2The Waitaki Board shall allow a further four months for this round of consultation.
Hartley Ann: Estimates Debate — In Committee Procedure 
Hartley Ann: Estimates Debate — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:618;Page:14420] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is.
Vote: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Procedure Referral to Health Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled  Speaker Recalled In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Procedure Referral to Health Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled  Speaker Recalled In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:613;Page:10008] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 65 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 3; New Zealand First 1; Green Party 9. 
Noes 52 
New Zealand National 24; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendments agreed to.
Hunt Jonathan: Telecommunications (Interception Capability) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Hunt Jonathan: Telecommunications (Interception Capability) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12300] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The question is  
That the Telecommunications (Interception Capability) Bill be now read a third time 
. Those in favour will say “Aye” of the contrary opinion will say “No”. The Ayes have it.
Hunt Jonathan: Visitors — Premier of Niue 
Hunt Jonathan: Visitors — Premier of Niue 
[Volume:607;Page:4405] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing members that the Hon Young Vivian Premier of Niue is within the precincts of the Chamber accompanied by the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade. I am sure members would wish he be welcomed. 
The Hon Young Vivian accompanied by the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade entered the Chamber and took a seat on the left of the Chair.
Tisch Lindsay: Financial Review Debate 
Tisch Lindsay: Financial Review Debate 
[Volume:607;Page:4187] 
LINDSAY TISCH (NZ National—Piako) 
: 
 This has been a very interesting debate and at this hour of the night my contribution—[ 
Interruption 
] It is very interesting that we have a lot of comments coming from members opposite who have come into the House at the last minute. They think the debate is going to end. They do not realise it is a 4-hour debate which means we will still be debating this tomorrow because we will still have about 6 minutes to go. My starting now means that I will still have the last say tomorrow. It is a 4-hour debate; it is not a debate that will finish tonight when the House lifts. I will be back here tomorrow. If members opposite are not going to listen to my points now I will be making them again tomorrow. 
I bring members’ attention back to the realities of what is happening out in the communities. In the area that I represent there have been some very buoyant years. The last couple of years have been very very good down on the farm. We have had high commodity prices. They have been excellent commodity prices—the best for many a year. We have had a low exchange rate—also probably the best for about 15-odd years. We have had low interest rates and above all we have had that one thing that this Government claims it has had some influence in and that is the weather. We have had the best weather conditions to be experienced for many many years. The flow-on effect from that has been that rural communities in particular have done well and that has flowed through into the buoyancy we have seen throughout the country. That is all going to stop because in the dairy industry which forms a big part of the area that I represent Fonterra New Zealand’s biggest company which last year paid out $5.10 per kilogram of milk solids is forecast to pay only $3.60 per kilogram this year. That means a huge reduction in the incomes that will flow through into the rural sector. 
What has the Government done? It has done absolutely nothing to reduce all the huge compliance costs out there that are faced not only by farmers but also by every business. The Resource Management Act is a huge cost. I see that a bill set down at No. 15 on the Order Paper is about the Resource Management Act but it will not improve the lot of businesses at all. In the area that I represent those compliance costs are huge issues that have to be dealt with. This Government has done absolutely nothing about that. It has been able to say that things have gone well and there has been buoyancy and that is true enough but at the end of the day when the hard knocks come—and that is what will happen over the next 6 months—this Government will find that it is not as easy as it thinks it is now. The Government has contributed absolutely nothing to the growth of this economy. It has ridden on the back of the factors that I mentioned before. 
Debate interrupted.
Vote: Holidays Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Vote: Holidays Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:614;Page:10552] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
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 7; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 177 in the name of the Hon Margaret Wilson to Part 3 be agreed to.
Vote: Television New Zealand Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Television New Zealand Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:606;Page:3762] 
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 69 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 16 be agreed to: 
to omit subparagraph (v) from subclause (2)(b).
Business Statement 
Business Statement 
[Volume:606;Page:3849] 
Business Statement 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week in the House it is the Government’s intention to complete the passing of the Government Superannuation Fund Amendment Bill (No 2) the second reading of the Government Communications Security Bureau Bill and the second reading of the War Pensions Amendment Bill (No 2). The Government also intends to make progress on the Taxation (Annual Rates Maori Organisations Taxpayer Compliance and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill and the Racing Bill. Wednesday is a members’ day. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (NZ National—Ilam) 
: 
 I thank the Leader of the House for that indication of what we will be doing next week. I just ask him how soon he thinks the Responsible Gambling Bill which is at No. 25 on the Order Paper might come before the House noting that public interest in that bill is growing. I also ask him given that the Order Paper is now so very long whether he expects that the next session of the Parliament will have a number of urgent sessions. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 On the latter point I will be discussing that with my friends in the House. [ 
Interruption 
] Then I shall be informing my enemies of the result of those discussions. On the Responsible Gambling Bill we have not set down a firm date at this point. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I ask the Leader of the House what the Government’s intentions are in respect of the passage of the Maori Television Service Bill which has been long-time promised but on which there seems to be no progress whatsoever. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 It is the Government’s intention to pass the bill. Of course I would be only too willing to accept any offers of support from New Zealand First to accelerate that passage by means of urgency or other mechanisms. 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek clarification from the Leader of the House in relation to the Police Amendment Bill (No 2) which I see is still languishing at No. 32 on the Order Paper.  
Mr SPEAKER 
: No that is not provided for.
Hide Rodney: General Debate 
Hide Rodney: General Debate 
[Volume:625;Page:20240] 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Is it a new one—a fresh one? 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Yes. Does this mean that we will still have 12 slots today and does it mean—I ask because it matters to us—that United Future has given up its slot and will now take a Labour Party slot; if so which one? I think we are owed an explanation.
Duncan Helen: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Duncan Helen: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:616;Page:12443] 
9.  
HELEN DUNCAN (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Customs 
: What practical steps has the Customs Service taken to enhance security across the Asia-Pacific region? 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister of Customs) 
: Last week while hosting the World Customs Organization regional heads of administration meeting in Auckland the New Zealand Customs Service entered into bilateral cooperative agreements with both the Japanese customs administration and the Fiji Islands Revenue and Customs Authority.  
Helen Duncan 
: Can the Minister tell the House what the significance to New Zealand is of the cooperative arrangements with the Fiji Islands Revenue and Customs Authority and the customs administration of Japan? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: Fiji is a significant trans-shipping point for trade in and out of New Zealand and it makes sense for the security of both countries that we have a shared approach to enhancing security in the Pacific region. This is the first bilateral customs agreement that New Zealand has with any Pacific Island country. For Japan the agreement will facilitate secure trade between our two countries and will also provide a framework for cooperation in the investigation of illegal drugs and other criminal activity. 
Shane Ardern 
: As the Minister has acknowledged the importance of customs services for security across the Asia-Pacific region will he now admit that customs is a common-good service and therefore not proceed with the stupid $20 million tax that he intends to impose on industry in New Zealand? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: The charges associated with security and trade facilitation are anything but “stupid”. Without having secure arrangements we will not facilitate trade which I am sure that member agrees is very important. The second thing is that where there is an issue of security this Government pays for it fully. Where there is an issue of trade facilitation the private sector makes up the cost of that. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Does the Minister agree that both the customs cooperative framework with Japan and the US Container Security Initiative enhance national security—a core Crown responsibility—and with that in mind will he consider amending the Border Security Bill so that all public-good measures contained in that bill are funded through general taxation or will he at least enable that matter to be tested through the inclusion in the bill of a suitable clause; if not why not? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: The first aspect of the public-good issue is that the Crown accepts that there are many public-good aspects of security. The Crown invests heavily in the Customs Service in order to pay for the public good. Where there are issues around trade facilitation that are in the interests of facilitating trade for business that is a private good and private-good interests should pay.
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:21574] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to 
. 
Ayes 7 
Green Party 7. 
Noes 104 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Rod Donald to clause 14 be agreed to: 
to omit from subparagraph (ii) of subclause (1)(b) the expression “100” and substitute the expression “10”. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Rod Donald to clause 14 be agreed to: 
to omit from paragraph (c) of subclause (1) the expression “100” and substitute the expression “10”. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Rod Donald to clause 17 be agreed to: 
to omit from paragraph (e) of subclause (1) the words “either subparagraph (i) is met or subparagraph (ii)” and substitute the words “subparagraph (i) and subparagraph (ii) are met”. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Rod Donald to clause 17 be agreed to: 
to insert after subparagraph (iv)(e) in subclause (1) the following new paragraph: 
(f)the relevant land includes pastoral lease land and a tenure review must be completed.
Pillay Lynne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Pillay Lynne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:627;Page:21751] 
9.  
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What reports if any has he received on possible changes to school enrolment schemes? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 I have seen a bizarre report in the  
Central Leader 
 of 15 June that would encourage the unconstrained expansion of already overcrowded schools by way of huge capital injections into building programmes. I have seen a sound response to that feckless policy idea from John Morris Headmaster of Auckland Grammar School who said: “There has got to be a limit; we do not want to grow any bigger.” which actually undermines Dr Brash’s policy. 
Lynne Pillay 
: What other reports has he seen about proposed school policies? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I have seen a report in  
The 
Aucklander 
 of 8 June that a well-known person was recently summonsed to a principal’s office to explain to members of the Papakura Principals Association his endorsement of an illegal trust school and his criticism of Papakura principals teachers and schools generally. By the end of that meeting when his punishment had been meted out and the jandal had been applied he flip-flopped and said that he holds Papakura principals in high regard for their leadership and the quality of the schools they run. That flip-flopper was Dr Brash. It is hard to keep track of National Party policy from one lunchtime to the next. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Does the Minister concede that his new school transport policy will have huge impacts on the enrolment schemes of schools in rural and provincial New Zealand and will he tell parents before the election whether he will proceed with this absurdity after the election? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The answer is that I hope to be able to. I think the policy was designed with good intent. It has some unintended consequences and I have had a very good suggestion recently which is that the policy should be applied on a voluntary basis. The big increase in funding that was going to be offered to directly resource schools can go ahead and those who want to run buses into other schools’ areas can do that alternatively. It is a good idea I think. 
Bernie Ogilvy 
: Does the Minister then concede that school zoning can lead to inequity and that without some form of zoning it is impossible to guarantee that every child has the choice of attending his or her local school; if so will he allow popular schools to expand the number of out-of-zone enrolments by ballot if they want to? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Notwithstanding the fact that I am Minister in charge of climate change at the moment we do not restrict schools from increasing the number of kids who come in by way of ballot if there are places in the school for those children.
Vote: Ngati Ruanui Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Ngati Ruanui Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:607;Page:4941] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 8 
Green Party 8. 
Noes 105 
Labour 52; New Zealand National 24; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 72 in the name of the Hon Margaret Wilson be agreed to.
Wilson Margaret: Responses — Omar Ali and Amer Salman—Statements made by Rt Hon Winston Peters 
Wilson Margaret: Responses — Omar Ali and Amer Salman—Statements made by Rt Hon Winston Peters 
[Volume:627;Page:22163] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I hereby present a response under Standing Orders 161 to 163 on the application of Mr Omar Ali and Mr Amer Salman relating to statements made by the Rt Hon Winston Peters MP on Tuesday 31 May and Wednesday 1 June 2005.
Power Simon: Civil Union Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Power Simon: Civil Union Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:622;Page:17571] 
SIMON POWER (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I seek clarification on the point of order. Certainly in the votes I have been involved with in the Ayes lobby proxies for people who were either in the queue to vote or in the Chamber were not recorded as proxy votes. If indeed in some cases they were then when the member arrived at the point of casting the personal vote the vote was amended on the sheet to record that it was not a proxy vote. In other words if the member was present in either the lobby or the Chamber that was certainly taken into account in the way the votes were tallied in the Ayes lobby. In fact earlier in the day when voting was taking place with considerably more members in the Chamber—if I am able to say that—we took some care to make sure that when party whips or representatives of the whips cast those votes and the teller saw those members in the queue then their vote was not recorded as a proxy and we waited for them to reach the teller. That was my understanding as to how those votes were to be recorded in accordance with the advice that has been given by the Hon Richard Prebble.
Vote: State Sector Amendment Bill (No 3) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: State Sector Amendment Bill (No 3) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12186] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
that Part 2 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 75 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 45 
New Zealand National 27; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Part 2 as amended agreed to.