edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Dalziel Lianne: Land Transport Management Bill — In Committee 
Dalziel Lianne: Land Transport Management Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:613;Page:9736] 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Commerce) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Prebble Richard: Civil Union Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Prebble Richard: Civil Union Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:622;Page:17571] 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Before you declare the vote an interesting point has been drawn to my attention that I think it requires a ruling from you. We are doing a personal vote under Standing Order 146 which sets out the procedure. It states: “(1)(d) all members present within the Chamber or the lobbies when the doors are locked must vote or record their abstentions:”. This goes back to a similar Standing Order that has existed in the House for over a hundred years which is that members cannot just sit in their seats; they must vote. 
It has been drawn to my attention that some members continue to sit in their seats in the Chamber in the belief they can vote by proxy. On a personal vote I do not believe that a member can do that. I understand that four members have been put down as a proxy vote on this vote and I think their votes must be recorded in person. As they failed to do that then under those Standing Orders their votes get recorded in the opposite lobby. I believe that is what should happen in this case. That is what the old rule was. If a member went into the wrong lobby his or her vote got recorded in the opposite lobby as an encouragement not to do that again. 
I understand there are four members—there may be more—who cast proxy votes in this vote when they were present in the Chamber. Those votes certainly should be declared invalid and perhaps recorded in the opposite lobby. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I thank the member for raising that issue.
Parker David: Consumer Protection (Definitions of Goods and Services) Bill — In Committee 
Parker David: Consumer Protection (Definitions of Goods and Services) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6907] 
DAVID PARKER (NZ Labour—Otago) 
: I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Vote: Identity (Citizenship and Travel Documents) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Identity (Citizenship and Travel Documents) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:625;Page:20131] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 10 
Green Party 8; Maori Party 1; Other: Robson. 
Noes 104 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 24; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 359 in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to insert new clause 46A be agreed to. 
Amendment agreed to and Part 2 as amended agreed to.
Donald Rod: Overseas Investment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Donald Rod: Overseas Investment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:21580] 
ROD DONALD (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 Mr Power is right to the extent that the Chairperson said he would seek advice from the Speaker on the issue but the Chairperson also clearly ruled that he accepted the amendments. There was no doubt about that. So that particular issue is resolved as far as I am concerned. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: What did he say then Mr Donald? 
ROD DONALD 
: Mr Simich accepted the amendments.
Cullen Michael: Courts and Criminal Matters Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Cullen Michael: Courts and Criminal Matters Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:626;Page:21733] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Hereora Dave: Border Security Bill — In Committee 
Hereora Dave: Border Security Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:618;Page:13745] 
DAVE HEREORA (Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Vote: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:21654] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 60 
New Zealand Labour 51; United Future 7; Progressive 2. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 24; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 4; Green Party 9. 
Motion agreed to.
Vote: Taxation (Annual Rates Maori Organisations Taxpayer Compliance and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Taxation (Annual Rates Maori Organisations Taxpayer Compliance and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:606;Page:4105] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 67 
Noes 45 
Motion agreed to. 
Labour 52; Green Party 7; United Future 8. 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 5. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 3 is ruled out of order under Standing Order 316.
Points of Order — Replies to Written Questions—Timeliness 
Points of Order — Replies to Written Questions—Timeliness 
[Volume:620;Page:15797] 
Points of Order 
Replies to Written Questions—Timeliness 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It relates to Standing Order 366(4). On 21 September I lodged a written question with the Minister of Police relating to the Edwards case and the police decision not to prosecute. It was due for reply on 29 September. As of this morning the Minister’s office had not contrary to the Standing Orders replied at all. After some rather firm discussions between his office and mine this morning today at precisely 2 p.m. I received an answer. We often get a little frustrated in this House in relation to Ministers not answering questions. Right now I am left with the feeling that the Minister is deliberately flaunting the Standing Orders and toying with the Opposition in respect of answers. As the Standing Orders do not go beyond stating what recourse there is in order to bring Ministers into line I ask you Mr Speaker what protection you can offer the House to stop us simply being mucked around like that. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If the member had come to me a little while ago I would have made sure that I used my office to get an answer pretty well straight away. But as he has asked me to look at that matter I will. 
Question time resumed.
Peters Jim: Masterton District Council (Montfort Trimble Foundation) Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Peters Jim: Masterton District Council (Montfort Trimble Foundation) Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:614;Page:10426] 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 I intended to reserve my comments for the third reading but the Hon Ken Shirley has alerted me to the issue I was going to raise then. I can make a very clear distinction for the member in the Chair between the issue raised by the Hon Ken Shirley and the issue I wish to raise. That distinction was added to and I was so pleased—almost thrilled—to hear the member say that this was a local issue. 
This House will shortly be looking at the South Island Landless Maoris Act lands and those lands are a like situation. The situation in clause 6 of this bill—“In order for the foundation to further its objects”—is exactly as the Hon Ken Shirley has said. The member has helped us by saying that this is a local issue. The distinction though is that these are privately-owned forests—unlike the issue that the Hon Ken Shirley has raised. That involves State forests which are up to all but 15 percent of the West Coast. The Minister’s encouragement to me is really tremendous. Now I have an inkling that the Government must have waited for the bill—thinking about the South Island Landless Maoris Act land as well—and put together the like situation of privately owned forest incapable of being developed by the owners as they wished which was the intention at the time of the language of the South Island Landless Maoris Act. 
I am encouraged by the bill. I am very pleased to hear the member in the chair say that she supports local objectives. Clause 6(1)(a) states that the foundation “has full capacity to carry out or undertake any related business or related activity”—namely in this case providing for the supply of timber for public wants assisting the council to establish forests and providing for native and commercial forests. For those reasons alone New Zealand First gives this bill its enthusiastic support. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Georgina Beyer to clause 8(2) be agreed to: 
to omit the words “together with the amount of distributions made under subsection (1)(b)”. 
Amendment agreed to and clauses 1 to 28 as amended and the schedules agreed to. 
Bill reported with amendment.
Pettis Jill: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Referral to Health Committee Procedure In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Pettis Jill: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Referral to Health Committee Procedure In Committee 
[Sitting date: 15 October 2003. Volume:612;Page:9234. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
JILL PETTIS (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Donald Rod: Parole (Extended Supervision) and Sentencing Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Donald Rod: Parole (Extended Supervision) and Sentencing Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:618;Page:14169] 
ROD DONALD (Musterer—Green) 
: 
 Could the Chair please just clarify which three votes are we are having now? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: They are clause 6A and clause 20. So there will be votes on those two. At the moment we will be voting on clause 6A clause 20 and the remaining amendments by the Minister. Is that all? 
Nandor Tanczos 
: In that case I seek leave to also treat the amendments on Supplementary Order Paper 223 as a separate vote from the remainder of the amendments on Supplementary Order Paper 230 after taking account of the leave sought by Mr Ryall.
Carter John: Ngati Ruanui Claims Settlement Bill — Third Reading 
Carter John: Ngati Ruanui Claims Settlement Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:608;Page:5278] 
JOHN CARTER (Senior Whip—NZ National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. There is one more speaking slot that normally would be taken by National. However the Minister of Maori Affairs has been here all afternoon and given that he is present in the House it might be appropriate for him to make a contribution of 3 or 4 minutes. I am happy to relinquish my speaking slot if he so wishes to do so. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Does the Minister want to do that?
Carter David: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4) — In Committee 
Carter David: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4) — In Committee 
[Volume:619;Page:14553] 
Hon DAVID CARTER (National) 
: 
 This is an aspect of the legislation that I support. The bill comes into force on the day after the date on which it receives the royal assent. I think most members have acknowledged that it is critical that scampi be brought into the quota management system as quickly as possible. This issue has gone on for too long. I hope the Minister will assist the Committee by taking a call immediately to advise us when he expects the legislation to receive the royal assent. That is an important question that we need to know the answer to. 
In answer to a question raised in the House during question time today the Minister clearly implied that the Primary Production Committee had asked for information that the ministry had supplied to it under pressure. I accept that there was some of that but what the Minister failed to tell the House was that the pressure imposed on the select committee was from the Minister demanding that the legislation be returned very very quickly to the House. The committee undertook that work on the understanding that the legislation would progress through the House quickly so that it would receive the royal assent and so the process of allocating quota and the appeal process could then take place. We know now that that did not happen. For some reason which I have not been able to fathom the legislation was not progressed as we were told it would be. We are now progressing it with some haste and agreeing that it should be enacted on the day after it receives the royal assent but we ask the Minister to tell us when he expects that it will receive the royal assent. 
There is a whole raft of processes that occur once the legislation is passed. The quota is allocated the 20 working days of the allocation process are then notified and those fishers who disagree with the allocations as designated by the ministry have the opportunity to have their appeals heard by the Catch History Review Committee. The point I make is that the timing between now and 1 October is making the process almost impossible to complete. 
I see that the Minister is shaking his head and that is good. Let the Minister take the next call—and save us asking question after question all around the same issue—and tell us when we can expect the royal assent. Then we can clearly understand the process that will occur from now on and make sure that anybody allocated quota who then disagrees with the allocation has a fair and reasonable opportunity for his or her concerns to be heard before the final quota allocation is manifested on 1 October. If the Minister will take a call to explain that to the Committee then at this stage I will yield my turn and accept that—reserving of course the right to come back if I am not happy with the answer that is so given.
Hunt Jonathan: Business Statement 
Hunt Jonathan: Business Statement 
[Volume:616;Page:11989] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Before Mr Brownlee comments I would like to refer to a matter that occurred yesterday in the House. I would like to ask Mr Brownlee whether he made a disparaging remark about the Chair as he left the House. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Sorry? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: A remark was made by the member when he was asked to leave the House. Did he make a disparaging remark about the Chair at the time?
Cullen Michael: New Plymouth District Council (Land Vesting) Bill — Procedure 
Cullen Michael: New Plymouth District Council (Land Vesting) Bill — Procedure 
[Volume:607;Page:4887] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek leave for the time by which the Local Government and Environment Committee must finally report the New Plymouth District Council (Land Vesting) Bill to be extended to 30 October 2003. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There appears to be none.
Vote: Estimates Debate —  
Vote: Estimates Debate —  
[Volume:610;Page:7207] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Vote Agriculture and Forestry be agreed to. 
Ayes 60 
Labour 52; United Future 8. 
Noes 47 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Abstentions 9 
Green Party 9. 
Vote agreed to.
Soper Lesley: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
Soper Lesley: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
[Volume:627;Page:22135] 
LESLEY SOPER (Labour) 
: 
 I am a member of the Health Committee and the former elected deputy chair of the Southland District Health Board. I am proud of what this Government has achieved and proud to have such an excellent Minister of Health as Annette King. 
I was the deputy chair of the Southland District Health Board when it opened the new $70 million hospital in Invercargill last year—a facility funded by this Labour-led Government. It is one of the many new effective and efficient hospitals that Labour has funded because we believe in excellence not in old-style buildings and services not suited to modern New Zealanders. 
This Labour-led Government has been exceptionally excellently and outstandingly good for health. We found a mess in 1999. The Tories had gone through user-pays bed night charges the loss of professionals and hospital closures. May I say that the Tories had also for years done such things as tell my elderly father for whom I cared that he would wait years on a public health list for a cataract operation. What has Labour done? The Tories had no ideology for health no real belief that health was absolutely a public service and a public good. Labour came in with a philosophy that health was a public good. We actually talked about health promotion and illness prevention as a goal—not just about a sickness model as the Tories like to speak of. We have thought as a Government about the future of good health for this nation and we have a New Zealand Health Strategy that promotes that. 
What has that meant? It has meant increased access to affordable primary health care since Labour has been in Government. Now 3.7 million New Zealanders are benefiting from being enrolled in a primary health organisation which means that by 2007 they will all pay cheaper doctors’ fees and prescription charges. We have delivered on our promise to deliver double the number of hip and knee operations this year and I am exceptionally proud of the fact that we have also provided funding for up to 7500 more cataract operations in the next 3 years—something that my father would have benefited from if the Tories had bothered to think it important to provide for elderly New Zealanders. We have invested $200 million to fight back against meningococcal meningitis because we realise how important that is for the health of New Zealanders overall. Lastly we have funded district health boards more than half a billion dollars over the next 4 years to help them meet the costs of this year’s historic pay increase for nurses. It was long overdue and well deserved and has now been delivered; with Government funding it is able to be provided over 4 years. 
We have been an exceptionally good Government for health. We are proud of what we have done and we are looking forward to doing a great deal more to improve health and to turn round those disastrous years of a National Government that could not keep a Minister of Health for 5 minutes.
Carter David: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Procedure Referral to Health Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled  Speaker Recalled In Committee Procedure 
Carter David: 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:10000] 
Hon DAVID CARTER (National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. If I do not raise it I think we will have to call you back again. You said that when we go back into Committee a member who feels he has not had the chance to debate the issue fully can seek leave. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If it is granted then it carries on. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: But you subsequently said as you went to leave the Chair that we had to proceed with the vote before the option of seeking leave occurred as I understood it. So we need clarification.
Vote: Television New Zealand Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Television New Zealand Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:606;Page:3758] 
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 69 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Katherine Rich to new clause 10 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 57 in the name of the Hon Steve Maharey be agreed to: 
to omit subparagraph (iii) from subclause (2)(b).
Vote: Appropriation (2005/06 Estimates) Bill — Third Reading Imprest Supply Debate 
Vote: Appropriation (2005/06 Estimates) Bill — Third Reading Imprest Supply Debate 
[Volume:627;Page:22262] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Appropriation (2005/06 Estimates) Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 51; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 35 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 7; Maori Party 1. 
Abstentions 22 
New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9. 
Bill read a third time.
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:10009] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment 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. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 119 in the name of Sue Kedgley to insert new clause 10A be agreed to.
Hide Rodney: General Debate 
Hide Rodney: General Debate 
[Volume:625;Page:20240] 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: They don’t like it! 
RODNEY HIDE 
: It is not a matter of whether we like it; it is about the procedure here. The Speaker says that he has in front of him an order of speakers. I want an explanation then from the Speaker because I think we are owed it. We have the same list in front of us. Are you now Mr Speaker not sticking to the list in front of you? By what process is that list changed? The list we have is not the one you have now.
Cunliffe David: Animal Products Amendment Bill (No 2) Animal Products (Ancillary and Transitional Provisions) Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Readings 
Cunliffe David: Animal Products Amendment Bill (No 2) Animal Products (Ancillary and Transitional Provisions) Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Readings 
[Volume:624;Page:19214] 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister for Communications) 
: 
 If there were ever any doubt that that member is a twice-failed spokesperson on agriculture that pathetic speech would prove it. He rambled off the subject on to everything from nuclear ships to tax policy but never once mentioned the substance of this bill. I support the bill and so does the Government whip.
Cullen Michael: Points of Order — Foreshore and Seabed—Media Briefing by Government 
Cullen Michael: Points of Order — Foreshore and Seabed—Media Briefing by Government 
[Volume:616;Page:12367] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I would be very happy for that to happen under the usual conditions of an embargo as with Budget lock-ups.
Vote: Dog Control Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Dog Control Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:613;Page:9887] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 35 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 7; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 82 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to.
Vote: Charities Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Charities Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:19959] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 74 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 44 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 7; Green Party 9; Maori Party 1. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to.
Collins Judith: Crimes and Misconduct (Overseas Operations) Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Collins Judith: Crimes and Misconduct (Overseas Operations) Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12227] 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 I take this opportunity to take a short call on Part 2 of the Crimes and Misconduct (Overseas Operations) Bill. As my colleague Mr Richard Worth said there are constitutional issues in relation to the bill that need to be considered. There is also the issue I have raised before over the actual jurisdiction. 
When I looked at how the bill would operate in the unlikely event that the Attorney-General would need to make use of it I asked myself how clauses 5 and 6 would operate. One of the issues would be the provisions in clause 5(2) which state that the jurisdiction applies when the offence has been done or omitted within New Zealand where it would constitute an offence. I had a concern at the second reading about how that would operate if a person who is accused of an offence said that he or she was not subject to the jurisdiction because the offence did not occur or because he or she did not commit it. The bill does not state that if someone is accused of the offence then it is deemed that the place where the person is accused of having committed the offence is in New Zealand. I am just wondering whether that is a chicken and egg situation happening. I would query very much if there were a prosecution whether a defence would be that the jurisdiction did not apply until after the offence had been proven. 
Clause 6 “Powers of arrest and detention” relates only to when someone is alleged to have committed an offence. I wonder whether the Minister in the chair the Hon Ruth Dyson or the officials who are available could confirm that clause 5(2) would still operate on the basis of an allegation rather than a proven situation. I am sure that the Minister is taking note of that. It is a situation where we would not want this bill— 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: 5(2)? 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: Yes. We should make sure that the bill goes through in a way that it does not come back at a later stage to hit us. I see that it is certainly covered in clause 6 but that clause is about the arrest. It is just the actual jurisdiction thing. That is the main point that I wanted to make on this part.
Pettis Jill: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) — Second Reading 
Pettis Jill: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) — Second Reading 
[Volume:619;Page:14998] 
JILL PETTIS (Labour—Whanganui) 
: 
 As has been said earlier in the debate this bill amends the Fisheries Act 1996 Act and the Fisheries Act 1983 and it has some very positive aspects to it. It provides for the introduction of scampi into the quota management system and it corrects some problems that have occurred previously with the current quota allocation mechanisms that were identified—in particular during the process of introducing North Island eels into the quota management system. 
This bill is important. It provides for revisions to the Fisheries Act 1996. Some of those very positive aspects are the reinforcement of the quota management system as the most preferred framework for managing our very valuable fisheries resources. It provides more direction as to when the quota management system will be used to manage fisheries it revises the current regime for authorising access to commercial fisheries and it removes the permit moratorium that is quite unnecessarily impeding the use of fisheries resources. 
But overall one of the aspects of this bill that is important to the ongoing management of this incredibly valuable resource is the sustainability aspect of it. We all know of fishery resources throughout the world that have been absolutely depleted when poor management has come to a crisis point. Hundreds of jobs are lost and the economy of regions is decimated. Our system here in New Zealand is highly regarded internationally for its forward management aspects. That is why this bill is a good bill. It provides for the utilisation of fisheries while still ensuring that important element of sustainability. I am pleased to commend this bill to the House.
Hughes Darren: Veterinarians Bill — First Reading 
Hughes Darren: Veterinarians Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:623;Page:18771] 
DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 I am pleased to take a brief call on the first reading of the Veterinarians Bill. This bill affects far more than just the 2500 people who work as vets in New Zealand. It impacts on all of those who use the services that vets provide both on farm and off farm. It is particularly important in rural parts of New Zealand where having a stable and highly professional veterinary workforce is important for the carrying out of farm work and therefore is important for the economy of New Zealand. 
As the previous speaker Brian Connell said a number of aspects of the bill line up better with legislation relating to other professionals across the health workforce. The Minister Damien O’Connor in his speech made reference to the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act which outlines what professional standards should be disciplinary matters and other powers that the council will have. 
It is a bill that I know is welcomed by the Veterinary Council and Veterinary Association. They of course will put forward their views to the very good Primary Production Committee which I am sure will be ably chaired by Mr Carter and assisted by Labour members. I look forward to seeing this bill come back to the House for its speedy passage in order to assist veterinarians in our country.
Points of Order — Question No. 3 to Minister—Comment 
Points of Order — Question No. 3 to Minister—Comment 
[Volume:615;Page:11519] 
Points of Order 
Question No. 3 to Minister—Comment 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I want to share with the House a slight dilemma that I have. I heard your comment after I left the Chamber that you did not hear me making a particular comment. I have checked with the junior Government whip. I have listened to the tape which has a number of my interjections quite clearly on it but not the one complained of. My problem is that it is the view of both Mr English and Dr Cullen that I made a remark. I have no recollection of that; if I did I withdraw and apologise. I think it is also worth saying that I was probably unfair on Mr English in some of my comments and I apologise for that too. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thank the member and there that matter rests.
Vote: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
Vote: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
[Volume:627;Page:22219] 
A party vote was called for on the question That Vote Immigration  
be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 51; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 31 
New Zealand National 25; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 1. 
Abstentions 21 
New Zealand First 13; Green Party 8. 
Vote Immigration agreed to.
Hunt Jonathan: Visitors — Sweden—Prime Minister 
Hunt Jonathan: Visitors — Sweden—Prime Minister 
[Volume:623;Page:18575] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing the House that His Excellency Mr Göran Persson Prime Minister of Sweden is within the precincts of this Chamber. I am sure that members would wish that he be welcomed and accorded a seat on the left of the Chair. We also wish to welcome members of his delegation who are present in the gallery. 
His Excellency Mr Göran Persson accompanied by the Prime Minister entered the Chamber and took a seat on the left of the Chair.
Hughes Darren: Customs and Excise (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Hughes Darren: Customs and Excise (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:608;Page:5384] 
DARREN HUGHES (NZ Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 I rise to speak in support of the second reading of this bill. It is interesting to follow the ACT party which does not seem to be letting the facts get in the way of a good story with regard to the passage of this bill. Mr Shirley came into the House and waved around a 1999 Labour Party manifesto card and said that we made a promise about our taxes. Well I have here our 2002 pre-election commitment card which clearly states there will be no rise in the rates of income tax GST or company tax. It may have missed the member’s attention but excise duty on alcohol is not actually income tax or GST. So it was quite wrong for the ACT party to assert that. 
Mr Shirley then went on to say that we were focused on alcopops and ready-to-drink products and that the Government had failed because this bill does not cover them. The Hon Jim Anderton as Acting Minister of Customs did not mention alcopops in his first reading speech. We are talking here about alcohol that is 14 percent proof plus and about bringing that into the same tax category as alcohol that is 23 percent proof plus. This measure is about harm minimisation and I will vote for the second reading of this bill.
Carter John: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
Carter John: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
[Volume:423;Page:18567] 
JOHN CARTER (National—Northland) 
: 
 The National Party will support this bill going to the select committee. I will not take an unnecessarily long time to speak but I have a couple of points to make on this issue. The first is and I think it is worthwhile for us to remember this that we do not live in a benign society—anything but. If any people anywhere in the world think that they are not in a situation where they could be involved in terrorism then they should think again. No country is immune—none at all. Indeed it worries me that we may well be seen to be a soft target. We need to be sure that we are playing our part and doing our bit to make sure that our people are protected as best as we are able. We need to play our part and I am glad—although it took a while to drag the Labour Government into this—that at least we now have Labour accepting that there is an issue that we need to address. This bill brings that issue to the House’s attention. 
The second part that I want to refer to specifically is the issue of the funding that the Minister has referred to and again I think that is a very useful addition to the substantive legislation in as much as there are many ways that one could fiddle the legislation if one likes if one is clever enough—and there are a whole lot of people who are clever enough. The Minister has put into this bill provisions for us to try to make sure that we cover every possible way that terrorism may be funded. I think it is important as we take this bill through that the select committee gives that proper consideration. 
September 11 will be remembered probably for ever—certainly for centuries—and it will no doubt be referred to in many many debates around the world for many many years to come. One of the things that I am pleased about is that generally this Parliament takes terrorism seriously and that every member of this Parliament takes it seriously. It pleases me that with the exception of one or two members we all speak generally with the same voice in expressing our concerns and our worries that there are people in this world who will use terrorism as a way to achieve their ends. Terrorism is not acceptable and we as a Parliament and as a country on behalf of our people will do everything we can to make sure that it does not affect our shores.
Vote: Corrections Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Corrections Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:13022] 
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 31 be agreed to: 
to add to subclause (1) the following new paragraph: 
(c)the rapid response to breaches of community work.
Cullen Michael: Government Superannuation Fund Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Reading 
Cullen Michael: Government Superannuation Fund Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Reading 
[Volume:606;Page:3919] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I move  
That the Government Superannuation Fund Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a third time 
. This bill is not exactly long and complex. It is very short and rectifies a situation that many people have come to regard as inequitable in that under the pre-1985 superannuation schemes a remarrying spouse loses her—and in all cases it is the woman in that position—right to the half-pension she inherited from her former husband. In many respects that is quite contrary to the present understandings about marital property and the inheritance of that marital property. 
There was a slightly cheeky reference in the committee to the length of time the bill has taken to be passed. Before Ms Wong gets carried to far along that track I might remind her that the Government Superannuitants Association asked the previous National-led Government many times in the 1990s to pass this legislation and was consistently refused by that Government. Indeed the member might recall her Government actually voting against a member’s bill by Jill White that was designed to do just that. It is this Government that has been responsible for bringing in this legislation. 
The cost of the changes in the bill also includes a change affecting a very small number of children. As one can understand we are talking about the children of somebody who died under the pre-1985 schemes so we are getting on a bit in terms of what is going on in that respect. Only 19 such people also get an inflation index allowance from here on as opposed to the frozen allowance they had previously. Those are significant changes. The first will make life easier for a number of women not all of whom are elderly. 
One of the difficulties in calculating the costs has been working out what the age structure—and therefore the likely survival times—of those widows is. The rough cost is between $2 and $2.5 million a year although personally I believe it will be somewhat lower. My office has never quite agreed with the Government Actuary’s estimates on this. We believe that they estimated rather too many young widows given whom we are talking about in that respect. But whatever it is the entire cost is taken by the Government on the Crown account because it is an additional cost to the Government Superannuation Fund that cannot be met out of the existing funds and never will be. 
We look forward to the passage of this bill. I know that there are some people who have taken action in anticipation of its passage. The good news for them is that the bill is backdated to 1 July 2002 so their anticipation will now be rewarded.
Brown Peter: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Brown Peter: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:620;Page:15961] 
10.  
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Has he received any advice on the long-term effect of increased fuel prices on the economic well-being of this country; if so what was that advice? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Acting Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Treasury advice is that a sustained increase in world oil prices could subtract 0.5 percent from world growth with obvious flow-on effects for New Zealand. The impact in the short term however has been masked by the high exchange rate and high commodity prices. 
Peter Brown 
: Will the Minister even consider postponing the proposed price hike stipulated in the Customs and Excise (Motor Spirits) Amendment Bill which increases petrol prices by 5.6c per litre from next April because he must be aware that for some people out there petrol prices are financially crippling; and does he remember that he is a representative of a party that advocates for the working people? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Working people in New Zealand like having roads to drive on. Every cent raised by this increase will go to easing congestion: $94 million for roading particularly for severely congested roads; $30 million for roads in regions—the first time that that has been a dedicated area—$30 million for rail and other alternatives to roading; and $36 million for public transport. The people of New Zealand want to get around and I do not understand why New Zealand First opposes that. 
Moana Mackey 
: Does the Government have a long-term energy strategy to help to address uncertainties over oil supply and price? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Yes the Government has a comprehensive strategy to address these issues. On the supply side we have introduced incentives for oil and gas exploration and on the demand side we are moving to encourage energy efficiency and alternative energy sources. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Does the Minister agree that it will assist our long-term economic well-being including that of working people to invest revenue from increased fuel prices in building sustainable transport infrastructure such as public transport rail and coasting shipping before oil prices rise so far that it becomes too expensive to do this? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Yes and that is why the Government is heading in that direction with the support of the Greens on that particular package. 
Peter Brown 
: Has the Minister had any concerns whatsoever expressed to him by the Minister for Economic Development the Hon Jim Anderton in regard to fuel costs and proposed increases—noting that that Minister once described himself as the “Minister for Low Petrol Prices” or some such term? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: In speaking on behalf of the Minister of Finance I regret that the Acting Minister of Finance has not been briefed on that particular issue.
Wellington Regional Council (Water Board Functions) Bill — Instruction to Committee 
Wellington Regional Council (Water Board Functions) Bill — Instruction to Committee 
[Volume:623;Page:18907] 
Wellington Regional Council (Water Board Functions) Bill 
Instruction to Committee 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Wellington Regional Council (Water Board Functions) Bill that it take the bill part by part. 
Motion agreed to.
English Bill: Speaker’s Rulings — Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) 
English Bill: Speaker’s Rulings — Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) 
[Volume:607;Page:4421] 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I just want to pick up on the implications of the ruling. I take it that that ruling now means that the drafting process is no longer independent of the executive—that is the Government can direct the form and process of drafting unimpeded by points of view from either the Clerk’s Office or the Speaker’s office.
Connell Brian: Education (Establishment of Universities) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Connell Brian: Education (Establishment of Universities) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:620;Page:16213] 
BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I am not certain at all of what is being voted on at the moment. Would you put the motion again please? 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: If the member had listened he would have heard that the Minister moved the first reading of the Education (Establishment of Universities) Amendment Bill correctly.
Tisch Lindsay: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill — Recommittal In Committee Third Reading Procedure 
Tisch Lindsay: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill — Recommittal In Committee Third Reading Procedure 
[Volume:621;Page:16855] 
LINDSAY TISCH (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I understand from the Business Committee that it was agreed that the names could be tabled which is different to having them recorded. I said in speaking to the point of order earlier that National is happy to table the names—I have them here. We are happy to table them which is different from recording them. So I seek leave for National to be able to table the names of members who voted for and those who opposed. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Vote: Electricity and Gas Industries Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Electricity and Gas Industries Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:16024] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Clause 2 agreed to.
Beyer Georgina: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Beyer Georgina: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:614;Page:10715] 
9.  
GEORGINA BEYER (Labour—Wairarapa) 
 to the  
Minister of Conservation 
: What steps are being taken to promote kiwi conservation? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Conservation) 
: 
 Many steps. Kiwis are actively protected in several key areas while at the same time enhanced methods of controlling stoats are being developed. Better control of alien predators is the key to the long-term protection of vulnerable native birds. 
Georgina Beyer 
: Are any new kiwi populations being established? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: Yes last week I joined the Rangitane iwi the National Wildlife Centre Trust and others in the release of brown kiwi in the Wairarapa’s Mount Bruce forest. Kiwi became extinct there over 100 years ago. They can now be safely returned thanks to intensive pest-control. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: Does the Minister agree that intrinsic to the success of the kiwi recovery programme at Lake Waikaremoana is the good working relationship between the local hapu Ngati Ruapani and the Department of Conservation—a relationship developed through responsive discussion over a considerable period of time—and what lessons does he think this might have for other areas of Government policy? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: In the massive task we face of preserving our native species it is very important that all groups—iwi recreationists the general public the Department of Conservation and others—work together to preserve these critical and unique species for all New Zealanders.
Ward Mike: Building Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Ward Mike: Building Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:619;Page:14829] 
MIKE WARD (Green) 
: 
 I ask for the leave of the Committee to withdraw my previous vote for the Maori Party. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There appears to be none. So on the previous closure motion the Ayes are 70 and the Noes are 49. We will now proceed to the next vote which is an amendment in the name of Sue Kedgley to clause 119C.
Vote: Land Transport (Street and Illegal Drag Racing) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Vote: Land Transport (Street and Illegal Drag Racing) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:607;Page:4567] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 100 
Noes 17 
Bill read a second time. 
Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8. 
ACT New Zealand 8; Green Party 9. 
Name changed to Land Transport (Unauthorised Street and Drag Racing) Amendment Bill.