Volume 624 Week 83 - Tuesday 15 March 2005 
Volume 624 Week 83 - Tuesday 15 March 2005 
[Volume:624;Page:19147] 
Tuesday 15 March 2005 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Visitors 
Republic of Ireland—Minister of State 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing members that Mr Conor Lenihan TD Minister of State from the Republic of Ireland 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. 
Mr Conor Lenihan accompanied by the Minister of Communications entered the Chamber and took a seat on the left of the Chair. 
Questions to Ministers 
Foreshore and Seabed Act—Appropriateness 
1. METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
 to the  
Attorney-General 
: Does he believe the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004 provides an appropriate process for recognising Maori customary rights and exercising Crown ownership responsibilities in the coastal marine area; if so why? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Attorney-General) 
: 
 Yes it provides recognition for Maori customary usage rights and for redress where customary title might have existed and can be demonstrated to the High Court. It also maintains all the normal environmental procedures in relation to the coastal resource. 
Metiria Turei 
: Can the Minister confirm that as the full legal owner of the seabed the Crown would stand to make tens of millions of dollars through royalties from the proposal of Black Sand Exploration Ltd to strip-mine over 3000 square kilometres of the seabed—an area equivalent to the size of Stewart Island? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: An application has not yet been received for mining. An application has been received for an exploration permit. The situation in relation to that is completely unchanged by the Foreshore and Seabed Act. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: What provisions does the Act contain to prevent further privatisation of the foreshore and seabed? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The Act vests full legal and beneficial ownership in the Crown explicitly states that the public foreshore and seabed is not to be alienated and provides that if any future Government wishes to sell any property on the foreshore and seabed it will need a special Act of Parliament to do so. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Has the Minister seen the claims made by the United Nations committee that was so critical of this legislation in New Zealand a committee of “experts of high moral standing and acknowledged impartiality” that includes countries like Egypt Algeria Guatemala Burkina Faso India Pakistan China and South Africa; and would he care to tell the House which of those countries have a race discrimination record worse than that of New Zealand? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: None that I am aware of. If of course the Green Party now sees Algeria as a country with a better human rights record than New Zealand then presumably it would be keen to see Mr Ahmed Zaoui return to it. 
Metiria Turei 
: Is it not true that the Government has changed the tax regime in favour of foreign mineral exploration companies such as Black Sand Exploration Ltd and is that not a vindication of Maori objections to the Foreshore and Seabed Act that Crown ownership under the Act would effectively lead to Crown sale of our precious marine resources? 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I think that you need to look at the primary question that is set down. Question time is the opportunity for all members of the House to question Ministers and those questions should be within the bounds of the question set down on the Order Paper. I do not see how a member can ask a Minister to answer questions about the Crown’s mineral regime at a time like this—quite honestly it is unfair to the rest of the House. 
Metiria Turei 
: The supplementary question referred explicitly to the Foreshore and Seabed Act which is the subject of the primary question. The primary question is worded generally around issues related to the Foreshore and Seabed Act to which my supplementary question applies. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The question is wide. I think the supplementary question is within particularly the second part of it so I ask the Minister to respond. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: There is a fallacy contained within the member’s question. The Foreshore and Seabed Act does not affect in the least the regime in relation to Crown minerals. 
Tariana Turia 
: How will the new situation of extinguishment be explained in the State report back to the United Nations? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Given that one of the questions asked by a member of the committee was: “What is the Crown?” probably with some difficulty in some cases but we will still be quite convinced by the answer we give. 
Metiria Turei 
: Is the Minister aware of the comment by a professor of marine geology about Black Sand Exploration’s proposal to strip-mine the sea: “Any animal that gets caught in the dredging process will be destroyed” and how does that “… preserve the public foreshore and seabed in perpetuity as the common heritage of all New Zealanders” as set out in the Foreshore and Seabed Act? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I repeat: the Foreshore and Seabed Act does not change the legislation and the regime in relation to the mining of those resources. If an exploration permit is approved by officials it will still require consent from local authorities for any action to occur. 
Metiria Turei 
: Can the Minister confirm that the Government will first decide whether it wants to profit from environmentally destructive mining and then later ask local councils to deal with the adverse effects; and does he not think that New Zealanders want through the Crown ownership provided for in the Foreshore and Seabed Act the Government to protect the long-term sustainability of our precious marine resources rather than seek short-term profits? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Having just had a visit from the Norwegian Prime Minister who has available at his command resources of some hundreds of billions of US dollars from petroleum mining I am simply amazed that anybody should think that we should never engage in any form of exploitation of mineral resources. 
Stephen Franks 
: Why does the Government seem to be prepared to be criticised by that UN committee over the foreshore and seabed matter when on an issue such as cosseting prisoners it will not assert sovereignty strongly enough to tell the UN that we will decide whether we pay compensation? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The Government has made its position clear in response to the United Nations committee report which was quite a moderate report by the standards of that committee. If one compares it with the report the Australians received in the late 1990s one finds we got off relatively lightly I think it could be said. We will be happy to comply with presenting a report to the United Nations committee at the end of the year but New Zealand remains a sovereign country that is not governed by a United Nations committee. 
Health Minister—Confidence 
2.  
Dr DON BRASH (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she have confidence in her Minister of Health; if so why? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes because she is a hard-working and conscientious Minister. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Will she give an assurance to the New Zealand public that their health will not be put at risk as a result of the non-availability of sufficient doses of the fully effective flu vaccine; if not why not? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The company contracted to supply the vaccine has admitted full responsibility for one of the three strains being less potent than it should be. Trials are going on in Australia now to see whether the level of potency will be sufficient but in the meantime the health authorities are behaving responsibly in looking for a way forward. 
Dr Don Brash 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I asked the Prime Minister to give an assurance to the New Zealand public that their health would not be put at risk. Do I take it from her answer that she is not willing to give that assurance? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Is that a supplementary question? 
Dr Don Brash 
: I asked a question and the Prime Minister failed to answer it. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The Prime Minister addressed what was relevant in the question. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: Does the Prime Minister’s answer mean that she has confidence in the way in which the Minister of Health and Pharmac have handled the Sanofi Pasteur affair and does it also mean that she has confidence in Pharmac’s ongoing ability to manage issues relating to access to new and different medicines for New Zealanders? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I have complete confidence in the way the New Zealand health authorities have handled the matter. Since the vaccination programme began as a subsidised one in New Zealand in 1997 it has always been the practice to have one sole contractor. This time the contractor has produced a vaccine that does not meet the World Health Organization level of efficacy although tests are going on in Australia to see whether it will be potent enough. 
Peter Brown 
: Noting the Prime Minister’s answer to the principal question will she give the House an assurance that the problems facing rest homes in this country at the moment whereby staff want a 3 percent increase will be passed on and that the Minister of Health will address the problems facing care nurses who are very very underpaid? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is broadly within the ambit of the question and I will ask the right honourable Prime Minister to address it. 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The issues with regard to the funding of elder care are actually the responsibility of the Associate Minister of Health the Hon Pete Hodgson. As the member knows more money was put into the area of elder care in December so that there could be a better settlement reached with rest home workers. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Does she support the Minister of Health’s view that it is perfectly acceptable to fund core health services with fast-food advertising campaigns such as Ronald McDonald and is she concerned that corporations like McDonald’s are insinuating themselves into our public health and education systems; if not why not? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I am aware that the Ronald McDonald House Charities has come forward to subsidise something to do with dental care in a part of New Zealand. The trust is known for putting a lot of money into supporting families and children. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: Does the Prime Minister’s answer to my original question mean that she and the Minister are satisfied that the procedures Pharmac applies when seeking tenders of this type are robust; and if it does mean that can she give the House an assurance that the decisions reached by Pharmac with regard to this particular contract were driven more by the public interest of good health than by saving dollars? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I can absolutely assure the member that the consideration was not about saving dollars. It is a question of a small market and of the need to get a reliable source of supply for the vaccine. I can further say that this particular company has 40 percent of the world share of the vaccine market. It is a reputable company but in this case it has let down all of its Southern Hemisphere clients by failing to have the strain for one kind of flu as potent as it should have been. 
Dr Don Brash 
: When did the Prime Minister and her Minister of Health first learn that the flu vaccine purchased for New Zealand would not be fully effective; and why did Government officials originally give the impression that the vaccine was only delayed when in fact it was actually ineffective against one of the likely flu strains? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The Minister was advised the same day as the New Zealand health authorities were advised by Medsafe and Pharmac of the issues. 
Opposition Member 
: What day? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: That happened to be on 28 February—and then I am sure the National Party’s statements came considerably after everyone in the parliamentary complex was notified. 
Heather Roy 
: Can the Prime Minister deny that the Minister of Health will oversee a record surge in health spending of over $1 billion in the next financial year—around double the historical yearly increase—and what concerns if any does she have about hospital productivity in light of this huge increase? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I can certainly confirm that the health area has had huge increases in funding under a Labour Government. One of the issues I am interested in is the level of productivity we get for that. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Does the Prime Minister believe that it is appropriate for the Minister of Health to help launch next week a Ronald McDonald House Charities advertising campaign—a trust that is the offshoot of a company whose products can cause harm to children’s health and teeth; and is it now Government policy for Ministers to promote the advertising campaigns of corporations like McDonald’s; if so why? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The Minister of Health is in no way promoting a corporate advertising campaign. 
Influenza—Vaccination Programme 
3.  
STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: What steps is the Ministry of Health taking to ensure the flu vaccine programme is undertaken effectively? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Health) 
: 
 Before I start I tell the House that my answer is a little longer than my usual short responses. I am advised that a manufacturing problem has been detected in the vaccine produced by Sanofi Pasteur which is the world’s largest influenza vaccine supplier with 40 percent of the world’s market and 70 percent of the Southern Hemisphere’s market. Concerns centre on the vaccine’s effectiveness not on its safety. The Ministry of Health is making a series of announcements this afternoon. 
Pharmac is seeking to purchase alternative supplies of the flu vaccine and so far 50000 doses have been secured by Solvay Pharmaceuticals which will be in New Zealand within the next 2 weeks. The ministry will use these doses to vaccinate those considered by expert advice to be in the highest-need groups. 
The ministry through its regulatory agency Medsafe is also exploring a number of alternative regimes including giving two doses of the Sanofi Pasteur vaccine in order to improve effectiveness provided that they meet safety efficacy and operational requirements. Medsafe and an independent expert advisory group are currently advising the Ministry of Health on these issues and I expect a decision in a week. 
Steve Chadwick 
: Who has been providing the Ministry of Health with advice on the vaccine and do they support the ministry’s advice on proposed options? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Since becoming aware of the concerns the ministry and Medsafe have been in consultation with a special independent expert advisory group and I am advised that its members agree with the options that the ministry is considering. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: How does the Minister intend to manage the logistics of immunising tens of thousands of vulnerable people in the South Island if and when an effective flu vaccine arrives given the warning from senior health professionals that due to the imminent roll-out of the meningococcal vaccine there are simply not enough staff to carry out both exercises effectively? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I am advised by the Ministry of Health that the fact that the meningococcal B vaccine programme is due to roll out in the South Island may well help us roll out the flu vaccine because additional nurses have been employed all around New Zealand to undertake this programme. That is the advice I have received. I do not know where the member gets his. 
Barbara Stewart 
: What assurances can the Minister give to the public that every person who should receive the flu vaccine will receive a fully effective vaccine before the flu arrives this winter? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I can give the assurance that the Ministry of Health Pharmac and Medsafe are doing their best to secure an effective vaccine—purchasing other vaccines but also working on the vaccine that was to be supplied. That vaccine is effective against two of the three suspected influenza strains we will receive in New Zealand. It has some effectiveness against the third strain but it is not as potent as it ought to be. We are looking at how we can improve that. 
Steve Chadwick 
: Why does New Zealand have a single provider for this vaccine and why was the supplier changed this year? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Since the introduction of the vaccination programme in 1997 New Zealand has always had a sole-supplier contract. This is because we are a very small proportion of the total world market. The company selected was selected in a transparent request for proposals process the same way we have always contracted for the vaccine. It was decided to accept a company that makes 40 percent of the vaccines globally and 70 percent of the vaccines for the Southern Hemisphere. The company has already acknowledged that the efficacy issues are its responsibility. All the Southern Hemisphere countries are facing the same dilemma as that confronting New Zealand. 
Petrol—Taxes and Levies 
4.  
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: How much have all forms of taxes and levies gone up on each litre of petrol since the Government was elected in 1999 and does he have any concerns for the impact this is having on businesses and those on fixed incomes? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 They have increased 6.9c a litre to date excluding GST but including the increase of 2.78c a litre in the accident compensation levy. Beneficiaries and superannuitants are compensated annually for increases in the cost of living. In just over 2 weeks of course hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders will be better off as a result of the Working for Families package. 
Peter Brown 
: Is the Minister confident that an elderly single person living on a relatively low fixed income of $250 a week is compensated for what amounts to massive rises in the cost of fuel for their vehicle? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Yes and of course the variability in prices due to international oil price movements is much larger than the variability due to taxation changes. It is worth noting however that the proportion of the price represented by taxation in New Zealand is the fourth lowest out of 29 OECD countries. 
John Key 
: Which of the following necessitates the introduction of yet another tax: the $7.4 billion operating balance excluding revaluations and accounting changes surplus; the $34 billion of additional taxes collected in the last 5 years; or the cancellation of the January bond programme just to demonstrate that the Government is so awash with cash? Which of those three would it be? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I note from that last comment that the member has forgotten he is now a New Zealand person not an international financier. We try not to borrow money unnecessarily in New Zealand. 
Deborah Coddington 
: Why should any taxes be going up when just last week the Minister reported an operating surplus for 7 months running at $5.3 billion—that is $2 billion more than the previous year—or is this surplus like the proverbial elephant in the Minister’s living room that everybody else can see but that he says is not there? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I think my wife can confirm that there is no elephant in our living room. 
Keith Locke 
: Does the Minister agree that the money from the extra petrol tax will greatly benefit the people on fixed incomes and the businesses that Mr Brown is so worried about by improving public transport so that both people and goods can move quickly and more cheaply around our cities? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: All of the increase in the excise duty goes into the land transport system. A good part of that will go into public transport; other parts of that will go on the roading system. Unfortunately of course the economy is moving so strongly that we are seeing strong rises in the construction cost index at the present time. On the other points a number of members have raised I wish in a sense that they were in my position at the moment of trying to make the Budget numbers add up for the long term. 
Peter Brown 
: Is the Minister telling this House that low-income people particularly people on fixed incomes are as well off now as they were a few years ago when it comes to public transport or running their cars—is that what he is telling this House? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: What I can say is that the cost of petrol has gone up and down considerably. In real terms the cost of petrol now is significantly lower than it has been on many occasions in the past. [ 
Interruption 
] Mr Power cannot remember but if he had been here in the 1970s as an adult he would remember when prices were extremely high indeed—if one could get hold of petrol at that point. 
Larry Baldock 
: Does the Minister find any contradiction in statements from a member of this House who on one day calls on the Government to action the Allen report which states: “Broadly speaking the overall conclusion from the analysis is that: the current level and pattern of investment in New Zealand’s land transport infrastructure is sub-optimal” and then complains about the Government raising funds to do exactly what the Allen report recommends; if so perhaps the Minister is left to conclude that the member wants the Government to borrow all the money spend it on roads and then not figure out how to pay for it? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I think the member is right. Members should remind themselves that last week the Reserve Bank followed the well-trodden path that Dr Brash had been down previously by raising interest rates. The notion of feeding more demand into the economy with tax reductions at this point is about as insane as one could get in terms of economic management. 
Keith Locke 
: Does the Minister agree that in this area of the price of energy the main threat to us comes from the longer-term increase in the price of oil which even the Minister of Energy says could double and that investing now in rail bus and ferry transport is the way to secure our economic future and protect our environment? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I think we need a balanced approach. We do need increases in public transport but we also need to recognise that we have to use road transport particularly for freight purposes. Most people will not shift their containers on buses or by bicycle in the future. 
Larry Baldock 
: Does the Minister stand by the answer given to my question to the Hon Pete Hodgson last Thursday that over $600 million is paid each year for the ongoing health and social costs of road accidents that are not covered by accident compensation and a further $400 million from health costs arising from air pollution; if so would he care to repeat the answer for the benefit of Mr Brown and other members of the House who seem to have not heard that answer last week? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: It is absolutely clear from the information now available in the public arena that the excise duty on vehicles does not cover the full economic cost of the roading system and associated costs in terms of the environment and health. 
Ron Mark 
: For the benefit of the people in Wanaka who were at the A and P show over the weekend can the Minister tell the people of Wanaka where the equity is in their paying $1.35c per litre down there in the South Island whilst people in Auckland—the privileged part of the country where the Prime Minister has a greater interest—pay 15c or 20c less per litre yet most of the money is going up into good old Auckland’s coffers? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I do not want to offend the Prime Minister but I would certainly pay 15c per litre more to live in Wanaka rather than in Auckland. 
Medical Students—Debt 
5.  
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: Is he satisfied the Government is doing enough to reduce medical student debt so that adequate numbers of medical graduates remain in New Zealand to work? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 Considerable progress has been made; however this Minister is very rarely satisfied. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: Can I ask the Minister therefore why the trainee intern grant of $16800 per year for final-year medical students who work in hospitals has not been increased in over 10 years when it now equates to an hourly rate of $2.83 for students who are unable either to do other part-time work or to receive a student allowance yet who still have to pay $10000 a year in student fees? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: This is probably because the very good education spokesperson for the member’s party has never raised it as a priority in a meeting with me. 
H V Ross Robertson 
: Can the Minister tell the House what steps the Government has taken to limit the growth in student tuition fees? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The Government has overseen freezes in 2001 2002 and 2003 and a fee maxima policy; between 2000 and 2003 average university tuition fees have stayed about the same which contrasts with 41 percent growth between 1997 and 2000. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Can the Minister confirm that the children of people with New Zealand residence who live outside the country for up to 11 months of the year—the residents not the children—are entitled to State-funded education and that it is those sons and daughters who pack up for home after completing their New Zealand taxpayer - funded medical degrees who are the main contributors to the brain drain of medical graduates? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: There is a lot of anecdotal suggestion in that direction. It is something we have looked into and unfortunately for the member the facts are not absolutely consistent with the rumours and the gossip in that area. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: Does the Minister’s answer to my original supplementary question mean that now that I have raised the issue with him he will look at it and consider making the $3.2 million investment necessary to keep our young doctors working in New Zealand particularly when 82 percent of the students are saying they intend to leave within 2 years of graduation because of student debt? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Student debt may be a reason for some people to leave but as far as medical students are concerned it is a relatively minor one. Because doctors are so highly paid one-quarter of all doctors have totally paid off their student debt within 3 years of their graduation. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: Do the Minister’s answers to both those questions mean that now that the matter has been raised with him the Government will be moving to increase the trainee intern grant; if so when; if not why not? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I have had some excellent representations from the Minister of Health on that issue. Any move that occurs will be announced in the fullness of time at the appropriate moment and that Minister will get the credit. 
Tertiary Education—New Zealanders Living Abroad 
6.  
Dr DON BRASH (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Is her reported statement “a lot of the reasons people left are no longer valid” her only response to the OECD report showing 24.2 percent of New Zealand - born tertiary-educated people live outside New Zealand while only 2.5 percent of Australian-born tertiary-educated people live outside Australia; if not what other response does her Government intend to make? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 The words quoted were not a response to the OECD report. They were said in response to a question about the Government’s desire to get expats back home—something Dr Brash described on Radio Rhema yesterday as a great thing to do. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Is she concerned that the gap between the average after-tax wage in Australia and the average after-tax wage in New Zealand has grown from $5000 a year to nearly $9000 a year during her term as Prime Minister and does she not understand that that growing gap is forcing increasing numbers of tertiary-educated New Zealanders to consider leaving the land of their birth? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I want to see New Zealand incomes rise over time. What I know is that freezing wages will not do the job and that that is Dr Brash’s answer. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Is she going to listen to the 25 percent of tertiary-educated New Zealanders who are voting with their feet and leaving these shores and respond with positive policies to attract them back or is she going to continue to say: “This is as good as it gets.” and decline to confront one of the greatest challenges facing this country? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I am certainly going to listen to a range of people including those who notwithstanding that financially they may have been better off elsewhere give as reasons for coming back home the fact that New Zealand has the comforts and security of home and guns riots and “white flight” are not issues the proximity to most other family members and the simple presumption that one would be closer to the land of one’s birth. Those were the reasons given by Dr Don Brash for coming home. 
Rodney Hide 
: Does she accept the OECD report that states that 24.2 percent of New Zealand tertiary-educated people live outside New Zealand compared with only 2.5 percent for those born in Australia and does that concern her or does she think it is another example of pointing out comparable statistics and bagging New Zealand? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I thank the member for his question. As he will have looked at the OECD report he will also know that the proportion of tertiary-educated people away from New Zealand is precisely the same as the number of such people who are away from Ireland. What are the two characteristics we have in common with Ireland? We are small countries and we have other major and affluent markets close to us where our people find very good jobs because they have a lot of skills to offer. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Why does the Prime Minister continue to claim that the reasons people left are no longer valid when New Zealanders are currently emigrating to Australia at the rate of 550 per week and what level will that have to reach in order for her to realise that in fact something in New Zealand is going terribly wrong? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: What I know is going terribly right is that we have the lowest unemployment in the Western World—at 3.6 percent—that we have one of the fastest-growing economies in the OECD that we have falling net debt and best of all that the National Party is not in Government. 
Dr Don Brash 
: I seek the leave of the House to table the front page from last Saturday’s  
Weekend Herald  
highlighting the results of the OECD report. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table the OECD document. Is there any objection? There is objection. The document will not be tabled. 
Dr Don Brash 
: I seek leave to table official Government statistics showing that in the last 5 years of the Labour Government almost 18000 people have moved from New Zealand to Australia net per year compared with about half that number when National was in Government. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. The document is not to be tabled. 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I seek leave to table the page from Dr Brash’s book where he states that among the reasons he came home was that he had met Mr Muldoon a few times at the New Zealand Embassy was struck by his brilliant mind—as sharp as a razor—and remembered thinking to himself that that guy was really going to take New Zealand places. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Rodney Hide 
: I seek leave to table the OECD report called  
Counting Immigrants and Expatriates in OECD Countries 
 which provides the raw data. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is. It will not be tabled. 
Taxation—Incidence 
7. Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie) 
 on behalf of  
CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What reports has he received about the incidence of tax in New Zealand and what do they show? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I have received an OECD report showing the single New Zealand production worker on the average full-time wage is the third-lowest taxed in the OECD. The single-income two-child family on the same wage is at present the tenth-lowest taxed in the OECD. 
Hon Mark Gosche 
: What impact will the Working for Families package have on those rankings? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The Inland Revenue Department calculates that Working for Families will on the basis of current entitlements in other countries reduce the tax wedge paid by the single-income two-child family from tenth-lowest in the OECD to fourth-lowest behind only Ireland Luxembourg and Iceland. The great advantage of Working for Families over a straight tax cut is that it reflects the different needs of households in the cost of raising children. 
John Key 
: If the Minister is correct and we are to believe that the incidence of tax in New Zealand is low can he tell the House why the Government has all of a sudden changed the way in which it presents its monthly Crown accounts to ensure that the bulging Government surplus is hidden as far from sight as possible? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: It does not take a giant intellect to read all the way through the Crown financial statements which appear each month. What has happened is that Opposition parties have been caught out by pretending that the operating surplus is cash. If that member had tried to do that when he was in the international financial community he would not be sitting here; he would be behind bars. 
Israel—Visa Requirements 
8.  
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (ACT) 
 to the  
Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade 
: Does New Zealand require Israeli citizens to hold a visa to visit New Zealand in a private capacity? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade) 
: 
 Most Israeli citizens wishing to visit New Zealand for tourist or private purposes enjoy visa-free entry. However following efforts by Israeli agents to acquire New Zealand passports fraudulently Israeli officials who wish to visit New Zealand have been required to apply for visas and a stay has been put on high-level visits pending satisfactory resolution of the passport affair. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: In view of the New Zealand Government’s policy since last July to scrutinise and challenge only Israelis visiting New Zealand in any official Government capacity why was Gabi Ashkenazi’s visa application declined when it was made very clear that his intention was to visit New Zealand in a private capacity to address a private function of the New Zealand Jewish community in Auckland last Sunday evening? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: If the member had read the statement of 15 July that he quoted from he would have seen that the first bullet point stated that New Zealand is suspending high-level visits from and to Israel. If the deputy chief of staff of the Israeli army is not a high-level visit then perhaps the member would like to explain to the House what it is. 
Martin Gallagher 
: Has the Government received any indication from the Israel Government of its willingness to resolve the outstanding issues relating to fraudulent acquisition of passports? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Yes. An approach has been made by the Israeli Government in response to New Zealand’s requirement for an apology for the illegal action of its agents and an assurance that no such actions will reoccur. We are hopeful of progress being made towards the resolution of these issues so that this unfortunate matter can be put behind us. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Did the Minister of Immigration consult with him as Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade and/or with the Prime Minister before deciding to decline Major General Gabi Ashkenazi’s visa application? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I take responsibility for making that decision. I made that decision in line with the publicly announced policy by the Government on 15 July—a policy that was overwhelmingly supported by New Zealanders while that member’s party acted as a cringing apologist for the illegal and criminal actions of those agents. 
Rodney Hide 
: Rubbish! 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: It is on record—and Mr Hide is one of the chief culprits for that cringing apologist stance taken by ACT. 
Dail Jones 
: What response has the Minister received from the group that would be hearing from the deputy chief of staff as to the action of the Israeli Government and the Israeli agents’ fraudulent activities in relation to New Zealand passports—for example has that group ever said to the Government that it was deeply upset by the behaviour of the Israeli Government’s activists? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I have not heard directly from the group the member refers to but I would imagine that any New Zealand citizen would be deeply offended at criminal actions being taken in our country by agents of a Government that has been friendly to New Zealand in the past. That is not on. We have taken a resolute stance and every party in this House has supported it except the 1.7 percent ACT party which is on its way out and is in any case irrelevant. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Will the Minister concede that those involved in trying improperly to obtain a New Zealand passport have already been punished by the New Zealand courts and that the real reason an Israeli citizen was declined a visa was that it was yet another opportunity given the visit of the socialist Prime Minister of Norway to demonstrate to Helen Clark’s friends that under Helen Clark this Government is just as anti— 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I think it is important not to cause diplomatic offence. The Prime Minister of Norway is a Christian Democrat not a socialist. 
Simon Power 
: On a number of occasions during question time today senior Government Ministers have taken the opportunity to fling personal abuse at questioners during their answers to those questions. We now see during Mr Prebble’s question that Government members are able to barrack and interject while he asked his question. It will be very difficult for whips and shadow leaders to keep order on this side of the House unless those matters are addressed. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: There is a longstanding understanding in this House that members do not interject during a question and that is exactly what the Leader of the House did. He certainly knows better and I am very surprised that on that basis you as Speaker actually accepted that point of order. He should have been stood down straight away. If he had a point of order to make he should have made it at the conclusion of the question. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I am prepared to accept the correction by the Deputy Prime Minister. Some people would say that all Scandinavians are socialists but I am prepared to withdraw that remark. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I accept that you should have been allowed to finish. There should not have been an interjection. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I want to speak to this because it is quite an important point. We have got into the habit in this House of raising points of order rather late after the event has occurred. If one wants to raise a point of order on a matter that is within a question the point of order has to be raised at that point not at the end of the question. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Members should not interject during a question. However I take the point that they should at the first opportunity after that raise their point of order. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Would the Minister concede that those involved in trying to obtain a passport improperly have already been punished by our courts and is not the real reason that an Israeli citizen has been refused a visa yet another opportunity for this Government to show the Scandinavians that under Helen Clark New Zealand is now as pro Palestinian and anti Israeli as the Scandinavians and indeed the same reason that the Minister himself crossed half the world in order to shake terrorist Yasser Arafat by the hand? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: There are a number of questions so let me address each one. First of all they did not improperly acquire it; they criminally fraudulently acquired it—and that again is being an apologist for people who commit criminal acts. Secondly with regard to the fact that they have been punished already I note that the member at the time said—to quote from his letter—that the best option was to carpet the Israeli Government privately and read the riot act to them. That would of course have required the State to interfere in the judicial process to stop the independent judicial process from prosecuting the agents. Thirdly and finally New Zealand’s stance with regard to the Palestinian question and the dispute between Israel and the Palestinians is in line with the mainstream of international opinion including every country in the 25-member European Union—countries whose human rights records we are proud to stand alongside. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I am trying to be helpful to the Minister. He said he was going to answer every point. Why was he shaking Yasser Arafat’s hand? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. 
Question No. 9 to Minister 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Question No. 9 the Hon Matt Robson. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Hon Matt Robson 
: I don’t mind interjections during this. Has he received any recent reports on how the regions are responding to the challenge— 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. When a member is called it is quite simple: he or she stands up addresses the Minister and reads the question. The member does not go into a palaver like Matt Robson has. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. Would the member please ask the question. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. What was it about my point of order that meant it was not a point of order? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: In the point the member made as I understood it he was trying to say that the member should not have made any comment at all on the question before he had actually asked it. Is that correct? 
Rodney Hide 
: That is correct. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I do not regard that as a point of order. The member then went on to address the question immediately. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The point here is that the member is not addressing the question—he is asking it. The Standing Orders are extremely explicit about how questions are to be asked. Mr Robson has a very liberal view of how the world should be. It would be unfortunate if his view of how questions could be asked—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I ask members to be quiet during points of order. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: It would be unfortunate if Mr Robson’s view of how questions should be asked were to become the normal way of operating. Mr Hide was quite right to point out that Mr Robson was acting very much outside the Standing Orders. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I take the point from the member. In future members should not make any comment; they should address the question. 
Rodney Hide 
: Could I have it recorded in the record that I did raise a point of order and that you ruled in my favour? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes the member may if it makes him happy. I am happy to concede that. 
Economic Growth—Regions 
9.  
Hon MATT ROBSON (Deputy Leader—Progressive) 
 to the  
Minister for Industry and Regional Development 
: Has he received any recent reports on how the regions are responding to the challenge to lift their economic growth and what do these reports indicate? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Minister for Industry and Regional Development) 
: 
 Yes. Next week I am hosting a 3-day regional conference running from 21 to 23 March in the Hawke’s Bay. The conference theme is Our Future—Our Potential—Our Choices. It will be the third regional conference that this Government has held. The focus will be on discussing what further action can be taken by the Government working in partnership with business and communities to enhance regional economic growth. 
Hon Matt Robson 
: What is the purpose and what are the themes of the conference? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: The conference will be a chance for New Zealand’s regions to celebrate 23 consecutive quarters of year-on-year positive economic growth since this coalition Government was elected in 1999. It will be looking forward to the next steps that need to be taken to increase the momentum of regional development in New Zealand. Over 500 representatives from regional New Zealand will be attending. 
Hon Damien O'Connor 
: Is the Minister confident that people living in provincial towns will be kept informed about the outcome of the conference and how it might affect them? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: New Zealanders living in provincial rural areas will as usual be able to read about the outcome of the conference via the New Zealand Press Association network which allows for timely and affordable regional news from one part of New Zealand to be available to all other provincial newspapers. The New Zealand Press Association’s news-sharing service provides provincial newspapers—including the member’s own New Zealand - owned independent paper the  
Westport News 
—with an invaluable service which is why we are all watching with interest to see that our country’s regional and national interests continue to be taken into account by Fairfax and APN the major shareholders in the New Zealand Press Association. 
Peter Brown 
: Has the Minister seen any reports about the concerns people have in various regions about high fuel prices and high electricity prices? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: Yes of course I have but I have seen the reports of optimism and confidence from regions that have now been performing for 23 consecutive quarters in positive growth mode achieving the lowest unemployment records in 20 to 30 years and of the extraordinary growth in all the regions of New Zealand which is there for all to see if the member would like to visit every single regional town in New Zealand. 
Influenza—Vaccination Programme 
10.  
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: What assurances can she give the House and the New Zealand public that every person who should receive the flu vaccine will receive a fully effective vaccine this winter before the flu hits? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Health) 
: 
 I am advised that the—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the member please be seated or conduct the conversation outside while the question is being asked. Thank you. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. It has been a convention in the House that whips and leaders are able to go back and talk to members. It may well be that under your Speakership you are changing that convention. But I want an assurance that if that is happening when we see Government whips—and members as I have already seen in this question time—going to speak to one another the new convention will apply; or is there one rule for the Labour Government and another rule for the ACT party? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: It has been accepted that when a question is being asked it will be heard in silence. Interjections certainly are permitted during answers but while the question is being asked it will be heard in silence. That is what I was seeking. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I am quite concerned about that statement because people listening to this question time on the air will think that the ACT leader had made an interjection which he had not. He had just come back in order to speak to me. You have singled him out and given the impression to the whole country that we are behaving in a disorderly manner when in fact he is following a convention of this House. At the same time during this question time you have allowed Government members to interject. You took no action until the point was raised by an Opposition member and I do say to you that one of the requirements for being Speaker is to be fair. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: The ACT party or at least Mr Hide continues to defy you by continuing to stand in the aisle while the point of order is being taken. That is actually completely a challenge to your authority. I suggest to you that there is quite a difference between members moving around and speaking to each other and members standing in one of the aisles. That is not appropriate behaviour during question time when questions are being asked. The whips on both sides of this House do not stand in the aisles—and particularly not in that aisle—while questions are being asked. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Now we have the Deputy Prime Minister absolutely making something up. I have been a whip in this House and actually a whip for his party and I must assure you that whips move around the House as do leaders and they often stand in the aisle in order to speak to one of their own MPs. Mr Hide was not trying to interfere with the conduct of the House; he was speaking to one of his own members. If you are to now adopt Dr Cullen’s rulings then every time I see a Government whip standing in the aisles in front of the Ayes lobby which one sees every day we will be raising points of order. I suggest that you have made a mistake and that you owe Mr Hide an apology. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I would just point out to you that Mr Hide continues to stand in the aisle while the point of order is being taken. He is not supposed to do that while a point of order is being taken. He should return to his seat. He cannot possibly be conversing with another member of the House while you are dealing with a point of order in front of the House. So even if we take Mr Prebble’s point seriously Mr Hide is now clearly out of order and is being insolent to the Chair. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The point I was concerned about was that the Minister was about to address the question and that people were speaking during that time. I am aware that there is latitude in this House for people to walk around and to be able to converse with members. However in my judgment the member did not appear to be doing that at that time and that was the only point I was attempting to make. So I suggest we now resume the business of the House. 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Health) 
: 
 I am advised that medical practitioners experienced in this matter will say that no flu vaccine is 100 percent effective against influenza for two main reasons. Firstly whilst the World Health Organization chooses which strains will be included in the vaccine each year no vaccine can guarantee the strains that will affect any one county in any one year. For example last year’s vaccine did not include the Wellington strain; it was a new mutation. Secondly at least 15 percent of people who receive the vaccine do not develop a full immunity response to influenza. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: Why did the Minister reportedly say on 14 March that she was told “in the last few days” of the problems with the flu vaccine effectiveness when the Prime Minister told the House this afternoon that Mrs King knew about those problems on 28 February? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: The Prime Minister is absolutely correct. On 28 February I was advised that there was a problem with the vaccine. On 7 March I was told what the problem was. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member will be heard in silence. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: What did the Minister mean by her comments in the  
Dominion Post  
on Saturday 12 March when she reportedly said that she had been aware of the problems for only a matter of days and that it was not her role to act on them and why will she not take responsibility for this major public health crisis that affects over 700000 people? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: On 28 February Wayne McNee from Pharmac phoned me and said: “We have a problem with the vaccine.” I did not know what the problem was. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I think it is quite inappropriate for that kind of barracking noise and hooligan laughter to occur in question time. I think it is quite clear that if Ministers are going to have to give answers against that background of noise they simply will not bother giving them. It would be much better for them to simply sit down because there is no reason why a Minister should have to shout over the top of that kind of hooligan barracking from a bunch of ill-behaved Opposition members. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: We will not take that sort of lecture from the Deputy Prime Minister. That Minister is answering a question in a way that is just not plausible. If Ministers stand up and make complete plonkers of themselves by the answers they are giving the only expectation they can have is that the House will have a pretty robust view of that particular performance. For the Deputy Prime Minister to say that Ministers will not answer questions in the future simply confirms what most of the country has known for the last 5 years. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: The Minister said that she was informed on 28 February—I note that that is some 12 days before her reported statement in the  
Dominion Post 
; a matter of days 
— 
of a problem—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The point of order will be heard in silence and will then be ruled on. 
Opposition Member 
: It’s not a point of order. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: —it most certainly is—with the vaccine but not what the nature of the problem was. At that point there was an eruption of hooliganish laughter from members opposite. It is very hard to understand what they find difficult to understand about that particularly when they failed to react to an email that went to all members of Parliament some days later and had to wait for the media to tell them the news about it. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Of course interjections are permitted when answers are given but caterwauling does not enhance the answers given to those questions. I would ask members please to keep the level down. Of course interjections are permitted but if members cannot be heard it defeats the whole purpose of the exercise. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: On 28 February a Dr Wayne McNee phoned me and told me that there was a problem with the vaccine and that there would be a delay in delivery. At that stage I was not aware—and I do not think that Pharmac was aware—of the nature of the problem. It was not until I received a briefing from Pharmac on 7 March that it identified the nature of the problem. The problem was that a vaccine with three strains of influenza in it had two of the right potency and one not of the level of potency we had contracted for. That meant that it was 7 March when I was advised of that and that is a matter of days before the  
Dominion Post  
posed the questions to me. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: If the Minister was made aware of the problems with the flu vaccine only in the last few days as she claims why was Solvay Pharmaceuticals Australia contacted and asked to supply some of its vaccine 2 weeks ago; and why did she not ask what was wrong? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: As I said in my answer Pharmac advised me of a problem of supply. Pharmac immediately moved a day after being told there was a problem of supply to seek supply—which is right and proper and the right thing to do. It advised me on 7 March about the nature of that problem; I support the action the company took. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: What does the Minister intend to do about the fact that Pharmac was explicitly advised and warned by tendering vaccine suppliers to have a split tender so that New Zealanders would be put at less risk than from a sole-supply agreement; and what does she intend to do about Pharmac’s reply which was: “It’s not our way; the winner takes all.”? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Pharmac followed the request for proposals process that has been in place for 7 years starting under Bill English— 
Hon Bill English 
: So it’s our fault! 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: It is not a matter of blame; it is a matter of process. The same process for a sole tenderer has been carried out for 7 years. Pharmac carried out exactly the same process that had been carried out previously. However it has said today that it is prepared to look at a sole-tender process in the future. Having done this process for 7 years it is prepared to look at it. I also have to say that Pharmac disputes that any tenderers told them to go for a split tender. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I ask the Minister in the light of that last question whether it is a statistical fact that if two vaccines have an equal probability of failure it does not matter whether there is a split tender because the total probability of failure will remain the same. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I can confirm that. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: I seek leave to table two documents. The first is from the  
New Zealand Herald  
where Minister King says: “We want a flu vaccine but we certainly wouldn’t have a flu vaccine that didn’t work.” 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection. There is; the document will not be tabled. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: The second document cites the March  
New Zealand Medical Journal 
 article where Dr Michael Baker and others suggest that a flu pandemic could see up to 3700 New Zealanders die and where the Director-General of Health Dr Karen Poutasi said that the figures are sobering but are no surprise to the ministry which has long been concerned about influenza pandemics.  
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection. Yes there is. The document will not be tabled. 
School Leavers—Transition to Work 
11.  
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
 to the  
Minister of Youth Affairs 
: What progress has been made on services to ensure that school leavers move successfully from school into work or further education? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Youth Affairs) 
: 
 Last Thursday I attended the official launch of the Youth Horizons Trust as a lead provider to coordinate services to school leavers in the member’s own Waitakere electorate under the Government’s $27 million Youth Transitions Service programme. Four other Youth Transitions Service regional lead providers have been selected so far. They are in Whangarei Rotorua New Plymouth and Porirua. 
Lynne Pillay 
: Can the Minister identify other initiatives that assist school leavers to move successfully from school into work or further education? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Yes. The Government has committed over $200 million over the next 4 years towards our goal to have all 15 to 19-year-olds involved in education training work or other options by 2007. Other initiatives include the Modern Apprenticeships programme which will cover 8500 young people by the middle of the year; the Gateway programme enabling students from secondary schools of up to decile 6 to begin structured workplace learning; expansion of careers advice including the Designing Careers pilot; Work and Income regionalised programmes; and the post-placement service for youth trainees. 
Craig McNair 
: How can the Minister call it progress when a January 2005 OECD report shows that New Zealanders are now categorised as low-middle income earners along with two former Eastern bloc countries and when reports are showing student debt levels at record highs? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Speaking to the last part of the question I say that the member would have heard the Minister of Education report that students are paying back their debts more quickly according to recent reports; that the overwhelming majority are happy with the system they are working under; and that a great deal has been done to lower their debt. I also say to the member that when we became the Government in 1999 about 87.5 percent of young people were in education training or work. Ninety-three percent are now in that situation and the rest are coming into the youth transitions process I just announced. 
Tertiary Education Commission—Strategic Direction 
12.  
Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: Does he agree with the statement made by the Hon Steve Maharey in 2003 that “The Tertiary Education Commission will bring clear strategic direction to the system as a whole … It is very important to ensure that our research efforts and our student enrolments are concentrated in areas of high performance and high strategic relevance.”; if so does he think the Tertiary Education Commission is doing a good job? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 Of course and it is getting there. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister explain why he decided to allocate funding from the Strategic Priorities Fund to a course in homeopathy for pets and why that is more important than funding more apprenticeships? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Firstly I did not make the former decision; nor did any Minister. It is a bit rich to have members of the previous National Government which abolished apprenticeships saying that we should spend more when this Government has spent more on apprenticeships every single year—7500 Modern Apprenticeships—than that Government and the Opposition says it will scrap them and put those kids on the dole. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: What particular actions has the Tertiary Education Commission taken up to this point in time to focus enrolments to meet the tertiary strategy and is it not true that all we have seen thus far is a continuation of National’s “bums on seats” policy? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I would like to thank the member for asking that question and indicate that the member on the Government side of the House who was going to ask a supplementary question does not need to do so because it has been asked. The Performance-based Research Fund has helped to ensure that the universities now focus on research excellence not just on “bums on seats” as was the approach of the previous National Government. Funding for industry training has doubled. We have Modern Apprenticeships—opposed by and to be scrapped by the National Party if it ever gets into Government—and the number of people who are participating in degree programmes is continuing to increase. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister confirm that another of his strategic priorities that has received funding from the Strategic Priorities Fund is a course called the art of health which includes “understanding … the effect of colour on the human soul.” and “Metamorphosis and Transition” which “will be— 
Jill Pettis 
: Metamorphosis! 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes I agree. There is to be no comment. Would the member please apologise. 
Jill Pettis 
: I apologise. 
Hon Bill English 
: I will start again. Can the Minister confirm that another of his strategic priorities funded with public money from the Strategic Priorities Fund is a course called the art of health which includes an “understanding of the effect of colour on the human soul.” and “Metamorphosis and Transition” which “will be explored … through transition in colour and movement as well as through Myth Fairy Tale or poetry.” and that a further strategic priority is a course called “Dynamic line drawing” as “a means of exploring the 4 elements … as a basis of all form”? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I am not able to confirm all of that but I can say that there is some relationship between colours and how people feel. Blue is the National colour. Some people do believe in fairy tales: Bill English who wants to be leader. And line drawing is a good indication of how the National polling is going down. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: How can the Minister express confidence in the integrity of enrolments and their strategic relevance in light of the Whakatane-based wananga enrolling many kaumatua including an 82-year-old in a taxpayer-funded course in elementary te reo when all those people were fluent in te reo and were in fact even more fluent than the tutor even to the point where they were so fluent they did not need to attend the course? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: It does not seem to be a good case of needs-based education. 
Hon Bill English 
: How does the Minister explain his decisions to fund courses on homeopathy for pets and on fixing people by means of poetry to groups like the parents of autistic children who have waited 5 years for some Government movement on a better service for children with autism and have got precisely nothing? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I am quite prepared to brief them on the progress that has been made in that area and in special education generally. The member is quite wrong. If one is worried about pets and other dumb animals one just needs to look to the Opposition. 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The Standing Orders make it quite clear that some things are not to be included in answers including gratuitous insults. I ask that the member withdraw and apologise for his final remark in that answer. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
Hon Bill English 
: I seek leave to table the list of courses approved under the Minister for funding from the Strategic Priorities Fund including homeopathy for pets the art of health course a course on nail technology and other courses. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is. It will not be tabled. 
Hon Bill English 
: I seek leave to table material describing the content of the course called the art of health funded from the Strategic Priorities Fund. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is. It will not be tabled. 
Hon Bill English 
: I seek leave to table details of the content of the Diploma of Homeopathy (Animal Health) funded from the Strategic Priorities Fund. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: I seek leave to table a schedule of enrolled persons who were funded for an elementary te reo course in Whakatane many of whom were identified as fluent speakers in te reo. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is. The document will not be tabled. 
Urgent Debates Declined 
Influenza—Vaccination Programme 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have received from the Hon Peter Dunne and Dr Paul Hutchison applications under Standing Order 373 for an urgent debate regarding reports that the flu vaccine that was recently purchased by Pharmac is ineffective against one of the strains of the influenza virus. These applications do relate to a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility. The matter is of genuine public concern and this is evidenced for instance by the fact that there were three questions on it to the Minister of Health and the Prime Minister this afternoon. But action to address the issue has been announced. While these steps are in train I feel that there may well be other and better parliamentary means of addressing the issue over the next few days such as through the financial review debate which is imminent the general debate and further parliamentary questions. I have therefore decided that on balance this matter does not require the immediate attention of the House today by way of an urgent debate. The applications are accordingly declined. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The suggestion that the general debate might be a reasonable forum for this issue to be discussed finds no acceptance with the National Party. We have two speaking slots in tomorrow’s debate and that gives us 10 minutes in which to discuss this case inside a 1-hour debate in which as the House knows the topics will be wide ranging. As for the suggestion that the financial review debate is imminent anyone who has had a look at the House programme for this week will know that the financial review debate will not start until the House returns from next week’s adjournment which would mean that it would be 2 weeks from today before the House could possibly have a debate on this particular topic. In any event in the financial review debate we get 11 opportunities for 5-minute speeches to scrutinise some 72 Government agencies departments and such. I do not think that the reasons you gave to decline the debate which may well have been valid some time ago when Parliament was smaller and debate times longer hold water today. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member is aware of course that he cannot argue with the Speaker’s ruling. However the member can seek leave for a debate. Is the member seeking leave for a debate? 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 In the name of Paul Hutchison I seek leave for the debate to be held. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for the debate to be held. Is there any objection? There is. Leave is declined. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I accept your ruling and have no quarrel with it but I wonder whether you could give us further clarification perhaps at another time. One of the criteria you mentioned for turning down the debate was that the Government had made decisions about this matter. That would be a new criterion that I do not recall having been used to turn down a snap debate before. The snap debate works according to Parliament’s timetable not the Government’s. The Opposition did not have the opportunity to lodge a letter between Friday and now. The use of that criterion would suggest that as long as the Government makes some decisions before Parliament sits again then the Speaker may be able to use that as a reason to turn down the debate. I would be interested in your clarification as to whether the fact that the Government has made some decisions will now become one of the criteria that a letter has to meet or whether the main reason for turning this debate down is that you believe there are other opportunities to debate the issue. 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I was going to raise a slightly similar point of order Madam Speaker so with your indulgence I will make my point now and perhaps you can respond to both Mr English’s point of order and mine at the same time. In your ruling which I do not contest you appeared to imply that there may be not only other occasions for this debate to be held but other developments that may necessitate or justify a debate at some future point and it is on that matter that I would be grateful for your guidance. As I understand the Standing Orders and the Speakers’ rulings they relate to a matter being raised at the first available time in the House. The risk therefore may well be that if this matter is to take Mr English’s example the subject of ongoing Government actions at the point that a letter is submitted in the future that immediate point of urgency and immediacy has been lost. So I would be interested in some clarification in your response on that issue and some assurance that the ability of members to seek an adjournment on this matter at some point in the future has not been compromised by the ruling you have given today. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 The House will be in an interesting position later on today when it does the third reading of the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill and the bills therefrom. There are 23 separate questions to be put all of which could be individual votes which will all no doubt be almost exactly the same for each bill. That would almost certainly take more time than an urgent debate on this issue. I would therefore like to suggest to the House that it might be appropriate to take leave to take the 23 votes as one vote and to hold an urgent debate on this issue which would actually I think be a more useful use of Parliament’s time. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
: 
 Madam Speaker as my colleague the Hon Bill English pointed out to you we accept absolutely your ruling on this issue but I would appreciate your clarification on another issue for the future. If I heard correctly I think you used as one of the reasons for declining the application the fact that further questions could be asked on the matter in question time. I think you included language to that effect. What troubles me about that is that I am not sure I have ever heard a Speaker use that kind of thinking in a ruling prior to now. The reason why it is important is that it would be almost impossible unless the House was in urgency or about to enter into urgency for any application to meet that requirement because every application could be further addressed during question time unless the House was going into urgency on the next sitting day. I am deeply troubled by that part of the ruling as a principle because if that sets a precedent for the future it would be almost impossible to obtain an adjournment for an urgent debate. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Ruling on— 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I do not want you to rule Madam Speaker because I think Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith raised some interesting points. I also ask you to consider the offer made by the Deputy Prime Minister that if the Opposition were to accommodate the Government in its business then effectively we might be able to have a snap debate. I do not want there to be any suggestion at all that your decision was in any way influenced by the fact that we may have to have prolonged voting this afternoon. I would further ask you Madam Speaker to consider those points that I raised before because I do not think that since Parliament has been under MMP Speakers have considered the range of opportunities that is available to discuss matters like this. Parliament is very perfunctory for most of its time. When issues like this do arise I think it is appropriate that members of Parliament have an opportunity to express their views publicly and that the Government gets an opportunity to explain what it is doing about a particular issue. Otherwise we just get as other members have said the opportunity for the Government to take a few pieces of action here and there that may or may not satisfy public opinion. Parliament does not belong to the Government; it belongs to the members. I would have thought that the interest would be in ensuring that members’ opportunities are enhanced. So I ask you to consider particularly those points that were put in front of you earlier. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 There is one point on which I would be particularly keen to have a bit of elaboration and consideration maybe at some future time. Referring to the opportunity to debate issues in question time or as question time as an alternative to a debate does I think imply that we can get further with propositions and challenges in question time than in fact the rules are designed to allow—questions are constrained as questions. I think it would be useful to have that particular point clarified. Although during a debate one does issue challenges and call for answers that is often done in a rhetorical sense which is supposed to be an element that is strictly absent from question time. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank members. Ruling on the point of order I say that I considered the matter on the same basis as my predecessors had according to their rulings. I can assure members that the business of the House had absolutely nothing to do with this decision at all. Certainly the factors that have been raised individually were all taken together but were seen in the context of this particular case and in the light of today. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Furthermore as I indicated before I seek leave for the votes on Government orders of the day 1 to 23 to be taken as one vote and for a debate to be held according to the standard rules on urgent debate on the matter raised by the two members. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave has been sought in those terms. Is there any objection? There is. 
Relationships (Statutory References) Bill; AND BILLS THEREFROM 
Third Readings 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Associate Minister of Justice) 
 on behalf of the 
 Hon David Benson-Pope (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: I move.  
That the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill the Administration Amendment Bill (No 2) the Care of Children Amendment Bill the Child Support Amendment Bill (No 3) the Deaths by Accidents Compensation Amendment Bill the Estate and Gift Duties Amendment Bill the Goods and Services Tax Amendment Bill the Government Superannuation Fund Amendment Bill (No 4) the Income Tax Amendment Bill the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 4) the Interpretation Amendment Bill the Life Insurance Amendment Bill (No 2) the Marriage Amendment Bill the Minors’ Contracts Amendment Bill the New Zealand Superannuation Amendment Bill (No 2) the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill (No 2) the Property (Relationships) Amendment Bill the Real Estate Agents Amendment Bill the Social Security Amendment Bill the Tax Administration Amendment Bill the Trustee Amendment Bill the War Pensions Amendment Bill (No 3) and the Wills Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
. 
Today we reach the end of a journey—a journey that began with the National Government passing the Human Rights Act in 1993 and now ends with the opportunity to pass into law the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill and 22 other bills that recognise relationships. It is a journey where much of the ministerial work was done by my colleague Lianne Dalziel. We owe her a debt of thanks. She led a team of hard-working officials from a wide range of Government departments. My thanks go to them for their clarity for their attention to detail and for their hard work. 
For many New Zealanders the journey has been a long one involving much debate. But this Parliament has already faced up to New Zealand’s human rights obligations and decided that all New Zealanders deserve the right to formalise their relationship whether it be through marriage or through civil union. Now we can have the opportunity to pass legislation that will give legal status to civil unions that will legally recognise de facto couples and that will free New Zealanders from discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation and marital status. 
Some people object to the purpose of this legislation arguing that it removes choice for de facto couples who have chosen to avoid the legal consequences associated with marriage. I disagree for two reasons. First there are many reasons why people choose to be in a de facto relationship not simply because they wish to avoid the rights and obligations associated with marriage. Many are just as committed as married couples and would welcome the removal of laws that treat them differently. Secondly this legislation does not remove choice but in fact does quite the contrary by providing more choice for de facto couples and by confirming choices that already exist. 
This legislation will extend available choices by allowing people in de facto relationships to choose who may be involved in certain decision-making processes. For example in the event of a partner’s death the other person of the relationship will be able to have his or her partner’s name removed from the electoral roll or have the ability to be involved in making important decisions about funeral arrangements if that person so wishes. Like so many of the changes in this legislation it does not create an obligation; rather it provides an opportunity that people can choose to take up. It will also ensure that the particular form of relationship will no longer mean that some couples have unfair advantages over others. An important example of this will be the way in which people are treated for Government superannuation purposes. 
What is really significant about these bills is that they will recognise social realities and ensure that our legislation reflects the diversity of committed exclusive and stable relationships that exist in New Zealand. One in five New Zealanders—some 300000 people—who are living in a relationship have chosen not to marry. The law should not discriminate against persons in such committed exclusive loving and stable relationships. No fair-minded person could disagree with that. Already approximately 90 laws recognise de facto relationships—that is almost half of all the laws that contain rights and responsibilities for persons in a relationship. More important a number of significant relationship laws such as the Property (Relationships) Act and the Care of Children Act already recognise de facto relationships. This legislation is about finishing the job that has been piecemeal to date and making the remaining amendments which are mostly of a technical and administrative nature. 
This legislation is also about providing a legal framework for civil unions. At the end of last year Parliament decided to give effect to human rights law by giving all New Zealanders the option of formalising their relationships through a civil union. Today’s passing of the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill and the bills formerly part of that bill is a simple consequence of Parliament’s decision making the necessary amendments to legislation to provide legal recognition of civil unions. 
I would like to take the opportunity to refer to some comments made by submitters on the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill. Some noted that both same-sex and different-sex de facto couples have faced discrimination in areas such as finance student loans and allowances childcare insurance superannuation social security and legal access to children. One submitter was refused both bereavement and unpaid leave from work to attend the tangi of his partner’s mother. Another was unable to sign a consent-for-procedure form for her critically ill child because she was a non-biological mother and the biological mother was unavailable. Many more recounted discriminatory situations where same-sex and different-sex de facto partners had been denied the right to have any involvement in or even attend their partner’s funeral. A number of submitters told the Justice and Electoral Committee that there is less respect for the commitment and quality of relationships that many de facto couples have. They argued that the State should support de facto relationships as they share the same characteristics valued in marriage: love trust intimacy loyalty and commitment. 
What we should take from those comments is that in today’s New Zealand there are a variety of relationships that are vitally important to those who are in them and that require legal support and protection. It is important to treat these committed exclusive and stable relationships fairly while still upholding the institution of marriage. By recognising and showing respect for civil unions and same-sex and different-sex de facto relationships this legislation will improve people’s lives by encouraging stable and strong relationships. The effects of discrimination on children will be reduced and the family unit will be protected. It may also create a more tolerant and open-minded society that values human rights. 
Two issues were raised when the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill was considered by the Committee of the whole House. The first issue concerned the way in which same-sex de facto partners are treated in social security legislation. On 1 April 2007 same-sex de facto partners will be treated in the same manner as married people and different-sex de facto partners. The delay for this particular group is out of consideration for those in such relationships who know nothing of these changes and who might in 6 weeks’ time suddenly find themselves up to $126 a week lighter. The delay gives people in such relationships time to make considered decisions. People who enter into a civil union have not been given the same lead-in time on the basis that they will have consciously made the choice to enter the relationship knowing the consequences. 
The second issue concerned human rights. Mr Franks had stated that a church could be held liable for refusing to make its church premises available for civil union ceremonies. That is not so. Under section 97 of the Human Rights Act a discriminatory practice will not be considered unlawful if the practice constitutes a genuine justification. It is likely that the decision of a church to refuse to make its premises available for civil union ceremonies would constitute a genuine justification as it would also be justified for a church to refuse to hire its premises to satanists. Matters that could be taken into account include that it may be contrary to the religious teachings of the church and may lead to tension within that church community. 
By passing this legislation New Zealand will be following an international trend of giving effect to human rights obligations. Many other countries and States have extended or are considering extending the same rights in law to different and same-sex de facto couples as are available for married couples. New Zealand is justifiably proud of its international reputation for recognising human rights. This legislation is another opportunity for us as a nation to not only talk tough but follow through with actions that will be real and meaningful to people’s lives. Most important this legislation will end the injustice and distress that many people have suffered in being discriminated against. It will recognise the different choices people make about their relationships and it will support those choices. I commend these bills to the House. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 This legislation is the latest chapter in the attack by this Government on the family. It is yet another example of a complete lack of respect by Labour for the family unit which has underpinned society for hundreds of years. First this Government brought in a bill that said in respect of matrimonial property that de facto relationships and marriage are the same. Then Government members came into this Parliament and said that prostitution would be legalised. 
Lianne Dalziel 
: National introduced that bill. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I tell Lianne Dalziel not to fib. That was a Government bill. It is another— 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member knows that he cannot use that term to accuse a member of not telling the truth. The member will withdraw that remark and apologise. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I withdraw and apologise. But for the record I point out that Labour decriminalised prostitution. Labour passed laws in respect of matrimonial property that said there is no difference between de facto relationships and marriage and this same Government is now passing legislation that says there is no difference at all between people who are in a gay relationship in a married relationship or in a de facto relationship. They are wrong for two very—[ 
Interruption 
] Is it not interesting with the Labour Party? I listened respectfully to Marian Hobbs’ speech but the moment I try to make a contribution those Labour members shout us down because they know that what they are doing to this country of ours is wrong. What they are doing to families in New Zealand is wrong and they do not like it when people on this side of the House—[ 
Interruption 
]  
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member will not barrage with interjections like that. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: This legislation is based on two quite flawed premises. The first of those is that regardless of how long one is in a relationship whether it is a de facto relationship or a relationship that is committed for life Labour says it makes no difference at all. Yet all the social research shows that a long-term committed relationship is one of the most important things that we can do for children and for the future of our country. The second premise that is flawed about this legislation is the view that men and women are just the same; that it makes no difference whether a relationship is one of two men or two women. Well it does make a difference. I believe to the heart of my soul that men and women are equal but they are different. This Parliament can pass all the laws it likes but it cannot—[ 
Interruption 
] Oh Lianne Dalziel is not a mother; she would not understand. I know that. I say to members opposite—[ 
Interruption 
] If Lianne Dalziel takes a big deep breath and listens for a moment she may learn something. It is the future of our society the way in which children will be brought up and the historic reason why Parliament has given protection to marriage that is at stake in this law. Members opposite say that this bill does not erode away anything from marriage. 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: That’s right. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Well I say it is a bit like saying: “Let’s just give everybody School Certificate. That will not erode anything from the people who pass it.” Of course it does. In terms of every single area of law—and today we are proposing to change 186 laws—we are saying that they are all just the same. It is a bit like the National Certificate of Educational Achievement—educationally this Government has thrown standards out the window and now the Government is doing the same with relationships. It is saying: “It doesn’t matter they are all the same.” I say that those members are wrong. Then the Prime Minister said to the nation: “This is not a gay marriage bill.” But is it not interesting? In every single law in this legislation—on superannuation education children’s rights and welfare—Labour says that a civil union and a marriage are absolutely identical in law. This is putting the substance into it—it is gay marriage. Government members do not have the courage to tell the people of New Zealand that this legislation is about gay marriage but it is. 
 I challenge Lianne Dalziel to tell me one law in which gay marriage gay civil unions will be different from marriage. There is not one area. What we will have in this bill— 
Lianne Dalziel 
: The Courts Martial Appeals Act the Wills Amendment Act— 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Does the member want to make a speech? She can make a speech but she should at least give me—[ 
Interruption 
] I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: This is a robust debate. There have been interjections. I ask members to give the speaker a fair go and limit their interjections. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The Minister said that all those people in de facto relationships are dumb; that really they want to get married and she in some sort of a Reverend Moon exercise through the passing of this law will automatically marry 280000 people—and somehow that is fair and just and right. I say that those 280000 people who live in de facto relationships probably made a choice not to be married and that is their right. It is wrong of this Parliament to come along and in some sort of Reverend Moon exercise automatically clock those people into marriage and say that it is all the same. 
I worry about what this sort of anti-family legislation will do for our country. We get weasel words from the Government about its concern for children. We have debates on how kids can do better in life how we can avoid them getting entrapped with drugs how we can ensure that they do better educationally how we can ensure that they do not get involved in crime—all those things. All the social research shows that children who have committed mums and dads in long-term relationships do best but this Labour Party rejects all that research because it wants to be involved in another exercise in social engineering. That is wrong. It will take New Zealand backwards and this country deserves better. 
I also refer to claims by this Government that it will protect the terms “husband” and “wife”. Has it not done a great job of that! If we look through this legislation we see in every one of those 186 statutes that the terms “civil union partner” “wife” and “husband” are Labour says all just the same. I say to Lianne Dalziel and her social-engineering colleagues that they are wrong. De facto relationships civil unions and marriage are different and they should be recognised as different in the law of our land. 
I also predict that this law just like the prostitution law will have unintended consequences for New Zealand. The police last week spoke of all the problems that the prostitution law is starting to cause. It is feeding the gangs; feeding the seediest parts of New Zealand—that is Labour’s agenda for New Zealand. This relationships law will also cause all sorts of unintended consequences. I fear for the doctor who in one of our hospitals tries to make a decision in an awfully stressful situation such as whether the life-support machine will be turned off and what that will mean in terms of trying to determine whether there is some gay de facto or some pseudo de facto relationship when the legislation provides absolutely no definition of a de facto relationship. It is circular. [ 
Interruption 
] Well it has taken it out. During the select committee stage the Government took out any concrete definition. 
Lianne Dalziel 
: What does it say? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I have read the bill and I challenge Lianne Dalziel to get to her feet to explain for us exactly what a de facto relationship is. Any common-sense New Zealander who reads the definition that is provided will be absolutely none the wiser despite the legislation. 
Lianne Dalziel 
: What does it say? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: It says “in the nature of marriage”. 
Lianne Dalziel 
: Or? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: And goes on and that is about it. 
Lianne Dalziel 
: Or? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: That is about it. I simply ask that member opposite how that provides any certainty for the doctor who is trying to make a decision in that sort of emotional situation. This is flawed law. Relationships are different. [ 
Interruption 
] I say to Mr Parekura Horomia that de facto relationships gay relations and marriage are different. The Maori people of New Zealand are different. One of the reasons there will be a change of Government in September of this year is that New Zealanders have had enough of anti-family politically correct legislation. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 Speaking as a New Zealand First member of Parliament I must say this is a rather sad day for New Zealand when we see this type of legislation being passed into law. This is a very bad bill and in looking through all of it I can only say that I will be working hard to bring in a member’s bill to repeal the law. This type of legislation is an affront to decent standards in society and we should not be giving parliamentary recognition to this type of behaviour. So I will be putting together a member’s bill to put an end to this civil union structure which is really just a form of lesbian-lesbian marriage and homosexual-homosexual marriage. 
If this Labour Party Government is remembered for anything in its 6-year term it will be for this type of legislation. When it is defeated at the next election it will be as a result of its social engineering policies. These types of measures are an affront to our society. The Government will be remembered for this bill and to fill in the picture given by the previous speaker Dr Nick Smith it will be remembered for legislation like the Property (Relationships) Act. Once again in a nanny State way the Government decided that people living in a de facto relationship should come under part of the matrimonial property legislation even though those people had decided by their own actions that that was not what they wanted. 
The Labour Party Government introduced immigration regulations that specified quite clearly that it wanted homosexuals and lesbians to come and live in New Zealand. The law previously did not specify that fact and indeed there was no reason why homosexuals and lesbians could not come and live in New Zealand. But no it just shows that this Labour Party encourages that type of behaviour and wants those people to come to New Zealand. 
Then along came the prostitution legislation where the Labour Party decided that it would make certain that prostitution was legal it would be a standard form of employment and the Resource Management Act and all the other relevant Acts would apply. So if a prostitute was off work he or she would get the unemployment benefit accident compensation and suchlike. That is the thinking of this Labour Party. 
The next bill it brought in was the Care of Children Bill which it trumpeted as applying specifically to homosexuals and lesbians in terms of custody issues. But of course as we know the courts were already granting custody orders in favour of lesbians and homosexuals. Those lesbians and homosexuals who came before the Justice and Electoral Committee thinking they would get something special were surprised to learn that that was the law anyway. Of course what the Labour Party is trying to do is tell the judges that it would like them to do that more often because it believes that that type of behaviour is normal and decent and that is the way New Zealand should be. 
Then we had the Civil Union Act in its two steps. That legislation was based on the Marriage Act in the first place and really was the Marriage Act but instead the word “marriage” was omitted and the words “civil union” substituted. That is the only difference between the two pieces of legislation. Of course this statutory references bill the sixth item on the Government’s agenda gives statutory effect and practice to many of the ways in which people who are living together may not come within a normal marriage situation. Of course as far as de factos are concerned people want to be in a de facto so that they were not part of a marriage. They wanted to be different. But people cannot be different in New Zealand under a Labour Party Government. Its socialist origins are just too much. It likes everybody to be the same. We all have to work on the same farm in the same way be taught the same things behave in the same way marry in the same way and have the law apply to them all in the same way whether or not we like it.People do not dare to be different in this Labour Party—being different and having a different way of behaving is too much for them. The nanny State comes in again in the shape of Helen Clark and her other Ministers and suchlike and says: “No you all have to be the same whether or not you like it.” Of course as an aside we saw that happen with the smoke-free legislation. I am an asthmatic and do not smoke but I do not mind whether bars do have cigarette smoke. I will not go to those bars. I am capable of making up my own mind but no nanny State and the Labour Party say: “This is the way it has to be done. You all have to be the same. No one can be different.” 
However to move on shortly we will have another bill from a Labour Party member—Georgina Beyer. She will introduce the “Trans-sexual Bill” or the “Cross-dressing Bill”. If girls are members of the Girl Guides they will be able to wear a Scouts uniform and boys who are Scouts will be able to wear a Girl Guide uniform and if people complain it will be a breach of their human rights and mum and dad can be prosecuted. That is the type of legislation that someone in the Labour Party will bring to this House. I say: “Good on her.” She has every right to do that and we have every right to be critical of the type of thing we have come to expect from Labour Party members of Parliament. 
The final action that the Labour Party will want to take—I think it is final but one never knows with the Labour Party—is to bring in a new Adoption Act to state formally that homosexuals and lesbians can adopt children. I think in law they can probably do that even now but that is too much of a shock for Labour members. They have to pass some legislation and to have it legislated for somewhere or other so that they can go back to all those wonderful European Union places the United Nations and say: “Aren’t we wonderful; we’ve got this great record in human rights.” I heard the speech made by the Minister who led off this debate the Hon Marian Hobbs and I have rarely heard so much humbug. She read the speech very well but I do not think her heart was actually in it. She was given the speech and she read it well but it was a lot of humbug and she knew as well as anybody else in this House that her talk about New Zealand leading the world and how all the other countries were catching up on New Zealand was an absolute load of humbug. 
One of the problems we have in New Zealand today is that so many New Zealanders are leaving. We would like New Zealanders to come back but what sort of a country do they have to come back to when we constantly have this type of legislation rammed down our throats by a nanny State—the Labour Party? It is obviously unacceptable to people and it is one of the reasons why they do not come back. The fact that house prices have gone up 65 percent in Auckland in the last 5 years and in the rest of the country by about 45 percent and wages are low under this Labour Government is another reason—amongst many other reasons—why people will not come back. This type of legislation clearly shows to everybody overseas where this minority Labour Government’s preferences lie. 
We have had two bills—the Civil Union Bill and the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill. Each of those bills would have cost this country $10 million. That is about $20 million that this minority Labour Government has spent on this legislation. Who is this legislation for? Only 0.2 percent of the adult population are affected by this legislation and I would say that 0.175 percent of them will not take advantage of it. They are grown-up adults they know what they are doing and they have their own lifestyle. So we are passing legislation for about 0.0025 percent of New Zealand’s population just to make Helen Clark and that coterie of lesbians and homosexuals who surround her happy. That is about the only reason for this legislation. Less than 0.1 percent of this population will get anything out of this legislation in so far as lesbians and homosexuals are concerned. De facto couples do not want this legislation; it has been rammed down their throats. That is as good a reason I know for bringing in a member’s bill to get rid of it. That is what I will be working on. 
The $20 million could have been spent much better on helping some solo mother to buy her children some clothes and shoes do something for the local schools and things like that. Any New Zealander could work out many many hundreds of ways that we could have better spent $20 million which is what this legislation is all about. It is an absolute disgrace. This bill should not be passed and I will working hard on a member’s bill to try to repeal it. 
LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 I want to speak only briefly on the third readings of this legislation largely to clarify the misunderstanding that has arisen as a result of a change made by the Justice and Electoral Committee to the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill and a recommendation it made to the Government in its report back. I am disappointed that a member of the select committee who opposed the bill misunderstood what the committee did with the bill—and the member knows to whom I refer. The select committee did not put off a hard decision on the definition of de facto relationship and refer it to the Law Commission to decide; it made a very clear decision about defining de facto relationships in the Interpretation Act so that it applied to all relevant legislation. We made references to the Law Commission but I will come to those in a minute. The select committee added the words “civil union” to the most frequently used definition of de facto relationship in any number of statutes if the member would like to add them up. It now reads that a de facto relationship is a “relationship in the nature of marriage or civil union”—something that completely escaped the notice of the National Party as well. 
The so-called definition that we removed from the bill as introduced was not a definition at all; it was a set of characteristics that a court could use to define whether somebody was living in a de facto relationship. The irony was that the set of characteristics in itself did not determine anything. The presence or absence of any one or all of them was not in itself to be determinant of whether the de facto relationship existed. 
Stephen Franks 
: A pseudo-definition. 
LIANNE DALZIEL 
: It was a pseudo-definition. Stephen Franks and I actually found some points of agreement at the select committee. I know I am ruining his reputation by mentioning it in the House but there were a lot of points on which we felt we reached some agreement. 
The difficulty with the list for me was that it came straight from court cases that were focused on determining property rights on the break-up of a de facto relationship that had existed in fact—and it was often a question of whether it existed in law—and whether it existed at a particular time in the law because as we know property cases are dependent on people living in a relationship in the nature of marriage for 3 years. 
The second series of court cases were about benefit entitlements. In fact they were about people trying to prove they were not living in a relationship in the nature of a marriage because of the benefit arrangements they had entered into. We did not think that that was appropriate for every single definition of a de facto relationship in every single law where de facto relationships were referred to. We have asked the courts—and I lay full credit at the feet of Stephen Franks for this—to focus on the purpose of the individual legislation when they make the decision about whether a de facto relationship exists. I think Stephen Franks made an important contribution to the definition in the Interpretation Act that will help courts make the right decision in cases where they are called upon to do so. 
The legislation as introduced extended social security laws to same-sex de facto couples on 1 April 2007—and for the benefit Mr Dail Jones I repeat that it does exactly the same thing as reported back. The legislation as introduced covered same-sex de facto couples on 1 April 2007 and the legislation we are passing today covers same-sex de facto couples on 1 April 2007. That is not the advice the member was reported in the media as giving. I am glad I have had the opportunity to clarify that and I am very glad that the member now admits that the coverage in the media was an inaccurate— 
Dail Jones 
: Don’t lie! Tell the truth! 
LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I beg the member’s— 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member cannot say that. He will stand withdraw and apologise. 
Dail Jones 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I simply said that that was how it was reported in the media. It was certainly reported in the Christchurch  
Press 
 in that way because we had to ensure that a full retraction was printed the following day to make up for the mess that that member caused. 
The last point I want to make relates to our references to the Law Commission but I do want to clarify one point. A friend rang me the other day to ask: “Why has the select committee taken de facto couples out of the property relationships legislation so now I have to enter into a civil union or get married or enter into a property agreement with my long-term de facto partner with whom I have children? Why has this happened?”. I had to explain that there has been no change to the law. The property relationships law simply covers civil unions. It continues to cover de facto couples same-sex and otherwise and that has always been the case since the property relationships legislation was passed. 
We told the Government that it would be really good to send some issues back to the Law Commission to reconsider in the light of legislation having been passed to cover civil unions. We have asked the Government to look at whether it would make terms of reference to the Law Commission to report on a number of matters including the Property (Relationships) Act. We have also asked the Government to consider people related by next of kin status and also to report on other domestic relationships where people are not accorded next of kin status because they are not married or in a civil union. We think those issues should be explored by the Law Commission and we commend those recommendations to the House. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 I am pleased to follow the honourable Lianne Dalziel because at least she tries to address some of the issues with intellectual integrity. We end up with pretty substantial disagreement but at least we agree that the questions are important. I am pleased to say that the Justice and Electoral Committee’s recommendation to the House that there is a whole lot of unfinished business in this legislation owes quite a lot to the fact that Lianne Dalziel was willing to look with fresh eyes at what the legislation ended up doing to our family law. 
The Relationships (Statutory References) Bill is the legislation that should have been debated and worked on before the Civil Union Bill the legislation that defined civil unions. Instead in this House in December we had a debate that was completely vacant in terms of the subject. We had a debate about passing a prescription for a pantomime imitation of marriage without knowing what legal effect it would have. When the select committee got around to looking at the legal effect the Government was embarrassed—and rightly so because it was quite plain that the legislation made a complete mockery not only of marriage but also of the civil union it was promoting. The legislation went through took nearly 100 Acts and a multitude of regulations and said: “Everywhere the word ‘marriage’ appears and where the words ‘civil union’ will appear let’s put in the words ‘de facto’ as well. And for good measure let’s make sure that ‘de facto’ covers just about any couple who shack up whether such people mean it to be long term or short term whether they respect each other whether they have a relationship of mutual trust whether the relationship is stable and committed or caring and whether it is exclusive.”—all was irrelevant. 
Yet this House was full of rhetoric about the Government wanting to endorse and strengthen what it calls “stable committed relationships”. Recognition of the problem is not enough because we have come back with legislation that still does absolutely nothing about stable committed relationships. There is no requirement in any of the law we have debated over the last 6 months for anything that expresses stability or commitment or requires caring. We have made a nonsense of one of the great inheritances of English law—the idea that marriage was not simply a token of dynastic connection that women were not tradable goods to be passed over and forced into servitude that it required competency and that it required people to know their own mind and to be of an age at which they could make an uncoerced decision. What does this legislation do? It reduces the age at which people can come into relationships where the consequence can be a serious commitment. 
What does this legislation do about consent the open ceremony in front of people where no door may be barred so that people can witness uncoerced agreement without duress? It is irrelevant. When de facto relationships that may be forged in drunken brutality qualify as being the same as marriage or civil union this Labour Government makes a mockery of the idea of uncoerced consent. There is nothing in the legislation about commitment. There is nothing that restores the enforceability of marriage or civil union. There is nothing that restores what was the most important contract people could enter into to have the slightest contractual effect. It is easier to recover for breach of a 1-day employment agreement than for a contract that is supposed to be for life. There is nothing about exclusivity. There is a mockery of it. 
This legislation goes back and amends the Civil Union Act even though it is only 2 months old and sticks into it further elaborations of the list of people one cannot civil unite with because of the blood relationship. Yet it is clearly intended for people for whom blood relationship will matter nothing because they are not expected to breed. This is gay marriage whatever the Prime Minister might say. It is gay marriage in the little things that let people down when they set out to deceive. It is gay marriage just by looking at what the Registrar-General of Births Deaths and Marriages has to do about celebrants. 
I have just received a letter from Ted Downing. He is a respected art dealer a valuer and a broker who has been a JP and a marriage celebrant for years. He told me that he is not aware of any complaints from anyone. He has no prejudices that would preclude him from becoming a civil union celebrant so he applied. He was asked to provide references which he did including one from probably one of New Zealand’s foremost art dealers and a very respected businessman. He supplied all the criteria he believed was necessary. He said what his civil engagements had been including councillor of the New Zealand Academy of Fine Arts and councillor of the Federation of Voluntary Welfare Organisations. Ted has held a number of positions in local organisations and he was the regional manager for half the North Island for the Royal New Zealand Foundation of the Blind yet he found he was not suitable. 
The reason was that Ted had not stated the community he would like to serve defined by geography interest belief or some other factor. He has tried to get to the bottom of this. The community he wants to serve is his community of Eastbourne or Wellington but that is not sufficient. He has been told that that is not adequate and if he does not provide more information he will be deemed to have withdrawn his application. He is trying to work out what community it is. He asked me whether if he joined Rainbow Labour that would be an adequate community. I think he should try because it may well be that that will do. Here is an active man who is fully employed. He is not retired so it is not as though his appointment would be short term. 
Apparently the registrar-general has been told that it is not sufficient that marriage celebrants have an impeccable record all the references and an interest in providing civil union services; they must also state what community they want to serve. Why is that? Is it to uphold the remuneration these people are to get? The Government cannot say. I would say that this House can draw the right conclusion. This is a matter of gay marriage and this man has not put in the code words to say “I’m gay”. That is his problem. If the Government was willing to look at this seriously and reassure the community that this was not simply gay marriage we would have put the words into the Civil Union Act. 
The Civil Union Act is being amended by the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill. It is one of the clauses in the bill. We have quite a substantial amendment to the Civil Union Act. We would have something there that would make it plain that this was intended to be neutral. Instead we have legislation that does nothing of what it should. It should as the select committee signalled in its report state what marriage and civil union ought to be about. 
Nothing in this legislation protects next of kin rights. Members—especially members of the select committee—will know how many earnest decent upset people came before the committee to support this legislation and the civil union legislation because they wanted to be respected when they visited their partners in hospital. They wanted to be respected when they tried to go to a mortuary to identify someone they loved who had died. This Government allowed this legislation to be peddled as though it would increase respect for those kinds of problems. There is nothing in it about next of kin rights. Nothing in it states that they must be recognised by a hospital or anyone else. Those things were not covered by law anyway. Yet Government members made speech after speech about it. I think we had one from the honourable Georgina Beyer who spoke with tear-jerking intensity about what the legislation would do in that area and of course it was not even covered by the legislation. 
The solution put into the legislation regarding the nature of marriage and sexual connection is only temporary. We got away from that pseudo-definition of a relationship as Lianne Dalziel said but by replacing it with the general statement that a relationship should be “in the nature of marriage” the courts are still left with an impossible task. How much affection is required? How much mutual reliance? Is sexual connection an important element of it? Courts will struggle with that because in most of the areas in which we have tinkered with the law that is actually irrelevant. 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 I stand today to support this legislation as without it the Civil Union Act means nothing. All nine Green MPs will be voting for this legislation as we have throughout its passage through the House. Our policy calls for equal treatment of people and couples irrespective of their sexual orientation. We believe that as a society we should celebrate diversity and encourage the appreciation of each other’s differences rather than condemn those who have a sexual orientation or gender identity different from our own. How dare we do that? Amongst other things the Greens are pleased that this legislation addresses some important issues such as giving a civil union partner rights to compensation for the death of a partner or the right to determine whether a partner can be cremated. We want the Government to continue to progress equity despite the hateful and vitriolic speeches made by some of the conservative moralists who cannot support it seems loving relationships. 
The Justice and Electoral Committee has made some sensible amendments to the legislation. I know that it has done a lot of work on it and I acknowledge them for that. Some of those amendments will ensure that we avoid unintended consequences for de facto couples. We hope that the Law Commission reports on the matters relating to next of kin which have already been talked about here this afternoon. The Greens are supportive of a type of next of kin register and hope that the commission will progress that issue positively. The Greens support the very different ways that we all establish our own families and relationships including what happens in that very difficult and sensitive period after a partner dies. 
The Green Party lives in the 21st century and recognises that the concept of a family with a mother father and 2.4 children is not necessarily the norm for many many people these days. People form different relationships for a whole variety of reasons. In fact many people never marry at all or never have a de facto relationship but instead have a very strong long-term bond with a sister brother or friend who fills that role of next of kin. It is ludicrous that independent adults cannot choose their next of kin who can make decisions for them if they are incapable without fear that distant or long-lost family members will seek a court ruling to overturn that. 
As I mentioned during the Committee stage I have a particular interest in the aspects that deal with the removal of some of the proposed amendments to the Social Security Act. The Greens were pleased to see that the select committee took out some amendments that would have changed the situation in relation to how de facto relationships are dealt with by the Ministry of Social Development. We were pleased to see that the checklist or tick-box approach—which would have in effect overturned aspects of the Ruka Court of Appeal judgment—was done away with. Likewise we are pleased to see the removal from the legislation of attempts to codify court judgments on relationships in the nature of marriage. Those clauses in the original legislation were subject to widespread criticism from beneficiary advocacy groups and others and we are glad that the Government has taken a common-sense approach to that and has put off doing anything about it in this particular legislation. 
During the Committee stage the Green Party put up two amendments. I will mention them just briefly. The first was to do with citizenship. We believe that this legislation should extend the rights of citizenship to civil union partners of New Zealand citizens. We could not understand why the Government given the enormous progress it has made with this legislation could not take the next step in relation to citizenship so that those entering a civil partnership would have the same legal rights as married couples do now. Secondly we put forward an amendment to the Adoption Act so that same-sex couples could adopt children. I am aware of the uproar that that caused in the House but again I simply cannot understand in the context of this law why we cannot go that next step and confer on same-sex couples the same rights to adopt as other couples have in this country. This legislation is about ending discrimination. We are not quite there yet and we are disappointed that the Government did not see fit to allow our amendments to go forward. 
I would now like to address some of the issues that have been raised by church people Christians who have been writing to MPs—probably to all of us—and encouraging us to oppose this legislation. I acknowledge some of those people who are in the House tonight. I respect the beliefs and the sincerity of the beliefs of the people who have been canvassing us on this matter but I say first of all that we do not live in a theocracy. We are not in a State in which Christianity any one form of Christianity or any other religion is our State religion. Therefore I do not understand how any group of people from any particular faith can think that they have a right to determine through Parliament that somehow their belief must govern all or any of the laws we pass here. In fact many Christians and people of other faiths support the recognition of civil unions everything that goes with them in this legislation and non-discriminatory practices. They recognise that gay and lesbian people are part of the glorious diversity of creation. At the time the Bible was written its writers did not understand the very nature of homosexuality—that it is part of us; that it is as natural as being straight. It is nothing new. It is as old as the history of the human race—in fact a whole lot older because homosexuality exists throughout creation; throughout all animal species including our own. 
Our understanding of science has moved on enormously in the last 2000 years or more from the Old Testament days. Just as we know that the Earth is not flat and now understand millions of other things so do those of us who are aware of scientific and biological reality realise that homosexuality in all its wondrous diversity is part of nature. I believe that whatever our religious faith or lack of it this legislation is about nurturing expressions of love and commitment between people and is part of the compassionate message of Christ and other religious leaders; nothing else. 
Finally I will respond briefly to some of the comments made by MPs in this debate. Firstly Paul Adams made some comments that stunned me. He talked about the need for every child to have grandparents and great-grandparents. I absolutely agree with Mr Adams but how on earth could he imply as he did the other day that somehow the children of gay and lesbian couples do not have grandparents or great-grandparents? It is simply a biological impossibility. 
Paul Adams 
: How do they? 
SUE BRADFORD 
: No human being can be born without parents. If the member would really like me to show him pictures later I will. Mr Adams also said among other things that he does not believe that there are any young ladies who do not dream of the day they will be married. That is likewise a rather quaint notion. I wonder how many young ladies he actually knows. 
Other members like Mr Adams’ colleague Murray Smith and New Zealand First’s Bill Gudgeon continue with that old canard that somehow because one group of people will no longer be discriminated against other people in society will be harmed or diminished as a consequence and that civil unions will impact negatively on those who are married now. Mr Gudgeon talks in particular of this law destroying families and destroying the love and cherishing that goes on within families. Obviously in his mind that means conventional families. That is simply incredible nonsense. This bill is not about damaging or destroying families—anybody’s family. It is about fostering a legal environment in which all families and all the children within them have the same rights as all others. Those rights and the increased sense of belonging to our society that this legislation will bring will actually help nurture good relationships within families and surely that is a wonderful thing for all of us. 
Mr Dail Jones keeps talking about Labour’s coterie of lesbians and homosexuals. I find that quite objectionable but I would like to assure him that the Green Party also has some quite fine coteries of lesbians and homosexuals. To conclude I would like to reiterate the Green Party’s firm commitment to both the Civil Union Act and this raft of legislation that goes with it. I congratulate the Labour Government on sticking to its guns on this legislation despite the massive campaign that has been waged against it over the last few years. Like most Labour Party members the Green Party believes that the future of our nation lies in the celebration of diversity not in stagnation and ancient prejudice. [ 
Interruption 
] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I remind people in the gallery that this debate is within Parliament. I urge members on the cross benches to be mindful that they do not interject on each other because it muffles the microphones—Speaker’s ruling 57/5. And there will be no more noise from the gallery. 
PAUL ADAMS (United Future) 
: 
 It is always a pleasure to follow the previous speaker who gave a very confused speech. It was a religious speech from a religion known as secular humanism which she follows. I will start with the point about bringing up grandchildren. I love my grandchildren and they are absolutely fantastic. Like all young children they always ask “Why?” and that is a very good question. So being a grandfather I will often tease them. I asked my grandson: “Why do you ask ‘Why?’ ” and he stopped for a minute looked me straight in the eye and said: “Because that’s how I learn Grandpa.” I thought what a very good answer that was from a 3-year-old. However why do we not ask ourselves why we are bringing in this sort of legislation? I think that is a very relevant question to ask. Why are we going against the trend of the rest of the world? 
I heard one speaker—I think that it was the honourable Lianne Dalziel—say that we are only following the trend of the world. Well no we are not following the trend of the world. I would remind the House today that the Doha Declaration on the Family was passed by 139 nations— 
Dail Jones 
: How many? 
PAUL ADAMS 
: I tell Mr Jones that it was 139 nations. They passed it on 6 September 2004. The Doha declaration calls on nations to uphold preserve and defend the institution of marriage. One thing we need to understand very clearly is that this legislation is in the process of destroying marriage because if the Government does not build something promote it lift it up high and say that it is the preferred institution it will be destroyed. 
I believe that the Government has a special responsibility especially when we consider the generations to come. I have heard many speeches about children but if we do not have the generations coming through then we will all disappear within a hundred years we can be assured of that—and looking around this House it may happen far sooner than even in that period of time. 
So we should promote an institution such as marriage where parents are committed to each other and a vast majority of them will choose to have children and to bring them up. I have heard many statistics quoted about marriage. I heard the honourable Lianne Dalziel yell out about adultery but this is the most adulterous legislation that I have ever come across in regard to the marriage laws. If we do not uphold marriage and promote it and esteem it above other sorts of relationships what message are we sending to the children—the young children? 
We have to stake a young tree for it to grow and we can even look at the gangs in our country for an example of that now. Many gang members joined gangs as young teenaged boys. They were looking for security that they perhaps did not find in their homes and they were looking for the companionship that perhaps was missing. Yet there is something within the hearts of men and women that makes us want to be loved be esteemed and be recognised for what we can contribute to society. There would not be one person listening today who would not have that wish. Yet sadly in today’s world that encouragement is missing. 
But those men in the gangs have all of a sudden recognised that they too have children. They do not want their children to follow the same pathway that they have had to follow. They want them to follow a better pathway because they realise on looking back that the thing that they thought was good and that would build has actually been destructive. We stand in this House today and we are destroying something that is vital to society—we are destroying the institution of marriage. 
I have heard much spoken about human rights and this bill is always and in every way about individual rights but a family is not about individual rights it is about responsibility. As a father I have responsibilities; I also have the responsibility to love and to look after my wife. I have the responsibility to guide my children in the best way that I can—and people can be assured that they will say that I am not perfect. Marriage is not a perfect institution. It has its problems and its challenges—just ask anybody who has been married for more than 12 months and he or she will confirm that—yet despite its imperfections it is still better than any other institution that we have had. I have heard statistics on divorce and nobody wants to see anybody go through the pain of divorce. Sadly in this country yes the divorce rate has been increasing and yes that has affected children. But let me also assure people that most people who get married—most people—firstly get married and then they may plan on having a family and their children bring challenges in their own measure. 
Likewise many couples who choose to live together have done so at first because a child was on the way although that is not always the case. Therefore those couples have to go through the challenges not only of learning to live with each other but also of how to bring up children. The statistics on the rate of those relationships breaking up and of those parents parting to the detriment of their children is double that of the rate of marriages breaking up. 
When we start to bring in things that bring confusion to young people who are now given a multitude of different relationships to choose from any young person will experiment. We know that; we were young once ourselves. However does the Government not have a responsibility as the Government—instead of passing this type of legislation—to pass legislation that states that we have discovered that history has shown and that the evidence is overwhelming that the best type of relationship to bring children up in is marriage. 
Is it not time for once that the Government brought in laws that actually built marriage up and that helped people in their relationships instead of saying: “Well if that sort of relationship did not work that is fine. Give it away. You chose the wrong sort of relationship. Go off and have another sort of relationship.” 
 I have had to counsel wives who have had the heartache of having a husband go off with another man. I ask members what they think that does to the self-esteem of such women. To be a homosexual or lesbian is to choose a lifestyle. I have dealt with many who have chosen to come out of that lifestyle and sadly we see that the pattern of why they entered those types of relationships which has probably been well debated and well discussed is a sad indictment on society. It is another reason why we need to promote and build marriages and not to pull them apart. We need children to grow up in households where mum respects dad and dad respects mum and where they love each other and show good principles to their children—show them a preferred pathway. 
No Government can ever legislate against people’s choices and neither do we but I believe we have a responsibility to make a clear pathway if we again want this nation to be the great nation I want it to be. I have always said that I entered politics because I want to be a generational politician. I see the potential in the young people of our nation yet with the lowering of the drinking age and the legalisation of prostitution I ask what choices we are putting before them. They are not choices that I know as a father are the right choices. We are asking them to make decisions when we should really be guiding them. We should not be giving them a free-range choice because one thing about young people is that they love to know what the boundaries are. 
When we start to break down the boundaries in society as we have been doing in recent times we will have a disrupted society—which we have now. As a United Future MP I stand as one who is proud to be a father and as one who wants to build marriage. I will be voting against this bill. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Maori Affairs) 
: 
 In listening to that member waxing lyrical about values and potential in children we need to be reminded that this legislation is certainly about expanding and creating choices. It is about creating choices that do not discriminate. Children cannot choose the union they come from. They cannot choose that and there has been a raft of partnerships and unions over the years. Taking a purist stance that being married—and married in the Church—is the only way people can strengthen their families and guide them I think begs the question. 
In relation to the point made by the previous speaker about the generations coming through we all want to encourage that. But things change. My parents came from families of 14 to 16 members on average and I came from a generation of families that had eight to 10 members. Maori families today have 2.5 kids. I do not know how we get the 0.5 but we have it. 
Darren Hughes 
: The intention Minister! 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
:The intention no matter how it is foisted on us or practised is certainly embellished in the union. This legislation certainly recognises that. It is about strengthening relationships and about managing and respecting peoples’ choices. 
In Maoridom one of the big debates over several generations has been about whangai children—children who did not belong to the legal union but who were picked up by grandparents aunts and uncles and given space in their houses. They were accepted even though they were not blood relations as part of those unions. That in my mind makes me very clear about why I will support this bill. 
There are a whole lot of issues around this legislation. I am always fascinated when people talk about not discriminating yet the essence of their delivery as we heard just before is about discrimination. We all want to cherish our families. We all want to ensure that our children and our mokopuna—our grandchildren—have a good journey forward. In Maoridom that has been practised for a long long time. Nearly 50 to 60 percent of its couples are not married in the Church so we need to ensure that those people—who do care for their kids—are not discriminated against on the premise that children are cared for only if their parents are married. I do wonder at that. I respect parents who are married but respect also needs to be shown to people who are outside marriage. I will support this bill. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Before I call the next member I advise the House that New Zealand First wishes to split its call. There will be two 5-minute calls and the bell will go with 1 minute remaining for each call. 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
: 
 I am very grateful for the opportunity to take a call on this third reading largely because it gives me an opportunity to remedy some statements I made during the Committee stage that I later found to be incorrect and that influenced the way I voted at that stage. They led for example to a nice little press release which stated that Donnelly had done a flip-flop. I have to tell the person who wrote it that physically that would be impossible these days! Lianne Dalziel was not very clear on how I came to be misled on the issue or how I got on the wrong track. It really started with a Government staffer who made a statement that all the social welfare stuff had been shelved. That led me to believe certain things. I have to say that that Government staffer was not being categorical. He told me to read the report in order to find out for myself so I cannot put the blame on him. Dail Jones when I went to him thought I was right but once again he advised me to read the Justice and Electoral Committee report. I did not read it because I thought that a person like Dail Jones being such a good legal man would know the situation exactly. Unfortunately I should have taken his advice and I take the responsibility for getting it wrong. 
The issue I got wrong was around the treatment of same-sex de facto relationships when it comes to benefits. I have always been of the belief that if we are going to make a level playing field then it has to be a level playing field across the board. The issue which I ask those people who are voting against this legislation and who say we have to support marriage to consider is that at present—under the present law—we actually discriminate against heterosexual couples when it comes to benefits because we treat homosexual couples as individuals but heterosexuals as couples. Let us face it: homosexuality is not illegal. Female homosexuality has never been illegal and male homosexuality has been legal for quite some time. I have not seen any member of Parliament put up a member’s bill to recriminalise homosexuality. It is a legal relationship so therefore there should be a mechanism whereby people can register a homosexual relationship. But that is not the issue. I believed that the bill was going to state that we would park de facto homosexual couples and the way we treated them in relation to benefits for a future time and that we would perhaps fix up the legislation later on. 
The reality is that the bill—and Tim Barnett who was quick to get to me and point out the error of my ways has just walked in—states that de facto same-sex relationships will be treated in exactly the same ways as heterosexual relationships within 2 years’ time. I personally— 
Peter Brown 
:Why 2 years? 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY 
: Let us hang on a second—I have no difficulty with that 2 years’ grace where people can get themselves organised around that particular fact. Now my understanding of the bill is that that is the way things will be for benefits into the future. If that is the case this bill will save the Government money—save taxpayers money. I have not worked out just how much the saving will actually be but there must be some members in the gay community who are not very happy with this Government because this measure will hit them in the pocket. But that is the test of whether the Government is committed to its principles or whether the supporters of this bill are committed to those principles. As far as I can see what we have now come up with is a consistently level playing field regardless of the form of a relationship—whether it is a marriage a civil union a de facto heterosexual relationship or a de facto homosexual relationship. 
I was asked during the debate on the Civil Union Bill what the difference was between a civil union and a gay marriage. The guy who was giving me a hard time said that a civil union was just a gay marriage. My response had to be that for starters one started with an “m” and the other with a “c”. In reality one would expect that the responsibilities and rights that flow from any of those relationships—a civil union a marriage or a de facto relationship—would be fairly similar and that is what we have. 
I want to finish off by making a remark I made in my first reading speech on the Civil Union Bill which is that my own candle will not shine any less brightly by allowing someone else to light a candle for himself or herself. I do not believe that the passage of this legislation will affect the quality of my marriage one jot. 
CRAIG McNAIR (NZ First) 
: 
 In speaking to the third reading of this legislation I just want to share my concerns with the House. One of my many concerns is that it is possible—and we talked about this in the Committee stage debate on Part 1 and Part 2—for example that if a church were to decline the use of its church hall for a civil union ceremony it could get into legal trouble in that regard. The same is relevant to for example a taxi driver who is uncomfortable with a civil union ceremony because it goes against his or her religious or other beliefs. He or she would have to drive a couple to such a ceremony. Even under the law we have right now taxi drivers are not allowed to turn down passengers unless they appear to be intoxicated. Under the current law taxi drivers have to accept passengers whether they are going to a civil union ceremony to a marriage ceremony or even just to a normal commitment ceremony without any legal ties. Taxi drivers have to accept those couples and allow them to ride with them in their taxis. 
Here we are impinging on people’s rights—on the rights of average ordinary New Zealanders—to choose to say: “The law is the law but personally I am unable to do this.” They will get into legal hassles if they do say that because when a taxi driver says—[ 
Interruption 
] I am speaking very specifically to the legislation Mr Speaker. If a taxi driver says that he or she is uneasy about this legislation and does not want to carry a couple some of the civil union couples whom we are talking about in this legislation will get upset there will be complaints and matters will spiral from there. 
I believe that that will become even more possible if this Government includes hate-speech provisions in the law. I suspect that the Government does not want to make its own hate-speech law. I suspect that it is more crafty and deceptive than that and that it will probably try to insert hate-speech provisions into laws such as the Human Rights Act—into section 61 or section 131. It may even slip those hate-speech provisions into our law through tightening up the Broadcasting Act or other pieces of legislation—rafts of it—to further restrict New Zealanders’ rights to have their say and to say no they disagree with a civil union ceremony. From the hate-speech investigation that is going on right now and from what we have seen with regard to the Civil Union Act the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill and laws such as the Prostitution Reform Act we can see that this Government is slowly day by day eroding the laws and values that are contained in legislation. 
The Greens spokesperson Sue Bradford said that this country is not a theocracy. She is probably right but the fact is that New Zealand has had a broad stroke of Christian humanity running through its laws for the last 150 years ever since it became a democracy. That is an undisputed fact. The fact is—whether members want to get away from it or not—that those laws have stood New Zealand in good stead in the past and should do so in the future. But this Labour Government is doing everything in its power to change that and I think it is disgraceful. 
GEORGINA BEYER (Labour—Wairarapa) 
: 
 I am very pleased to take a short call on the third reading of this companion legislation to the Civil Union Act. This is a great day of celebration for many New Zealanders. They will be able to choose to have a civil union if they so desire and it will have some punch—for want of a better term—behind it as a result of the various amendments that the legislation to which we are giving a third reading today will make in order to bring things into line and provide equity and equality. 
It has been interesting to listen to the contributions of some members to the debate this afternoon. I cannot help but detect a pessimistic sort of attitude—a fear and loathing for want of a better term—in some quarters about the state of relationships and particularly marriage in this country. Marriage is celebrated within this legislation. It is celebrated along with the civil union that it will help to endorse. In my opinion marriage is enhanced by this legislation and so is the state of relationships in this country. They will be enhanced by offering all New Zealanders the opportunity to have their relationships valued by our society so that we can continue to maintain the cornerstone that many in this House purport to uphold: family values. When I hear some of the pessimistic talk and the “fear and loathing” language of some members it concerns me. I have heard some members refer to my own member’s bill the Human Rights (Gender Identity) Amendment Bill which I am currently proposing for consideration by this Parliament. I have heard Mr Dail Jones make the most misleading comments about what that bill is about. It is about one simple inclusion in section 21 of the Human Rights Act to provide that gender identity is a ground upon which one cannot be discriminated against. 
The way this country has taken a lead in the world on legislation like this makes us admired and envied by many nations because we get it right and we give all people in this country a fair chance. That is represented in this Parliament. I respect the views that are expressed in their diversity. I support this legislation and celebrate its passing. 
TIM BARNETT (Labour—Christchurch Central) 
: 
 There are only a few votes to go and we will finally be there. Only 28 years after this Parliament agreed that there should be no discrimination on the grounds of marital status or the status of being in a de facto relationship and only 11 years after this Parliament agreed to add sexual orientation to the grounds of the Human Rights Act we are finally following the rules we set those generations ago. In passing the Civil Union Act and now this legislation we are playing catch-up with the rest of society. How ironic it is that from its birth the Maxim Institute as a voluntary organisation has had to avoid discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation or marital status yet only now has the Government set the same rules for itself—not I hasten to add that any self-respecting homosexual would seek to go to the Maxim Institute as a job choice. How ironic it is that Dail Jones and Nick Smith have for many years been obliged in their behaviour as private citizens to avoid discriminating against people and yet they want the Government to carry on doing the opposite of that. 
It is certainly true that civil unions form part of the initiative that is being completed today. The civil union legislation exists because the Marriage Act as it was—the only basis to formalise the legal status of relationships—was vulnerable to human rights complaints. Out of the debate on that we have achieved a unique double. Firstly marriage has been untouched. Indeed its clarity has been increased by the amendments made in this legislation to laws previously passed by this Parliament that refer to de facto partners as “spouses”. Secondly a new institution of civil unions compatible with human rights has been launched.This relationships bill gives context and practical meaning to civil unions now that Parliament has agreed to them. 
Of course Parliament plays catch-up in any number of areas. Scientific progress the latest youth craze and the latest attempt to evade tax are all examples of circumstances where the public and society have moved ahead of our ability to make laws. And so it is here. Many different-sex couples have lived and do live open lives without marrying and face minimal or no discrimination. Many same-sex couples will live together without civil unionising and face minimal or no discrimination. However the risk is there. At the moment before this legislation goes through mortuary administrators have to administer regulations on access to bodies that treat the spouse of a deceased person differently from a de facto partner. Members of company boards can avoid registering the interests of their same-sex or heterosexual de facto partner thereby increasing the possibility of corruption. Compared with the rights of married spouses the unmarried partners of people who have severe drug or alcohol dependence face immense problems in getting their partners committed for treatment. It is those and innumerable other unfairnesses that this relationships legislation addresses. 
The combination of the Civil Union Act and this legislation increases the options of and reduces the risk for de facto couples who have actively or passively decided not to formalise their relationships. But they still have the remaining risks. Their relationships have to be proved—they could be in multiple relationships or one party in a couple could consider himself or herself to be in a de facto relationship while the other party does not. So the law quite rightly has a continuing bias in favour of marriages and civil unions. 
The 9-month parliamentary process for these bills has been a memorable one. I am tempted to thank the Destiny Church for clarifying the issues for many people but I would not want to give it such false credit. How good it is that many New Zealanders understood the history of black shirts even if the Destiny Church did not. Only three generations ago men in black shirts gassed homosexuals people from racial minorities people from religious minorities and priests. How ironic! One of the extraordinary sideshows of this debate has been the position taken by the Maori Party. Tariana Turia has voted against equal guardianship rights for same-sex couples against civil unions and against equal relationship rights and she apparently opposes equal rights for the transgender community. She supports a referendum on civil unions—a majority vote on minority rights. And some of us thought that the human rights agenda was universal! So in the midst of such eccentricities I thank the Campaign for Civil Unions—particularly Cameron Law and Margaret Mayman and poster boys Des Smith and John Jolliff—for coming up with calm and reasonable reasons for law-change. I thank Stuart Beresford and his Ministry of Justice team for providing outstanding advice to the Justice and Electoral Committee and the Parliamentary Counsel Office for its complex work on this massive legislation. 
Some people saw immense doom accompanying the passing of these laws: volcanoes erupting pestilence hitting the land homosexuals dying in their early 40s the institution of marriage collapsing and the rise of an irresistible lobby for the formalisation of relationships between people and their horses. I most confidently predict that none of that will happen and equally confidently I predict that more loving couples will seek to protect their relationship and make a public statement of their unique commitment to each other. What is wrong with that? 
Dr RICHARD WORTH (National—Epsom) 
: 
 The debate on what was originally the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill is moving to a close. It has certainly been a marathon effort and the previous speaker Tim Barnett dwelt on that issue to some extent. 
I am intrigued that he has seen much more clearly than most of us—which is code for my saying that perhaps he has not seen—that there is a necessary linkage between the Civil Union Act and this legislation. The Civil Union Act is now part of the law of the land. How long it continues to exist as part of the law of the land will no doubt depend upon what happens after the next election. I sense that there is a growing mood of concern in the land and it is well reflected in the increasing number of groups that take up the challenge of family values. I look at the Maori Party—I would like to say that I look at United Future but I am not wholly sure where United Future stands on many issues— 
Darren Hughes 
: Unlike the National Party. 
Dr RICHARD WORTH 
: It is always helpful to have an interjection from a very young member of Parliament. I know where National stands. I look at where the new Samoan party—which I think might be called New Zealand Family Values—stands and I look at the Destiny Church and the views that it expounds and I see so clearly that family values have suddenly become of critical importance. This legislation is not about family values in any way at all. 
There are anomalies in this legislation and that is not surprising because it is incredibly complicated. We saw that complexity in one of the Supplementary Order Papers which proposed to divide the original bill into 23 separate Acts. In addition to that there are changes that make substantial amendments to a number of regulations. There is nothing that is straightforward about this legislation. In an earlier part of these proceedings in Parliament I made the comment that it is unsurprising that errors have occurred and doubtless further errors will be discovered. 
I gave an illustration that I think establishes well how foolish this legislation is. Take the case of a male aged 16 who is in a civil union which is quite possible under this legislation. It could occur in one of two ways. It could occur as a result of his parents consenting to the young man being in a civil union or it could occur by way of a court order. The illustration I am talking about is of a male aged 16 in a civil union with another male aged 40. 
Georgina Beyer 
: It could be a marriage. 
Dr RICHARD WORTH 
: It could be a marriage but I am talking about the situation of a civil union; it is the better example because of what I will go on to say. What could happen under this legislation is that the younger male could be the stepfather of the children of the older male’s first marriage. How ludicrous is that? But the issue is more important than simply the fact it seems absurd because significant property issues could arise if the younger male had substantial assets. We are talking about legislation that should protect children but the reality is that this legislation may give rise to the exploitation of younger people. 
The bill does two things. Firstly it gives legal effect to civil unions. I am not sure whether it was really necessary to do that because the Civil Union Act already gave legal expression to that possibility. The second thing it does which I deeply reject is that it takes the view that all relationships should be protected. When I say all relationships I am talking about the proposition that relationships should be protected to a broadly similar extent. I do not have any problem now that the Civil Union Act has passed with the relationships of marriage and civil union being protected—although I voted against the Civil Union Act for what I thought were well-deserved reasons. But I and I think many members in this House who support family values have a real problem with giving de facto couples the same rights and responsibilities that affix to married couples. 
 There is a good reason for that: people enter into de facto relationships—or I would say often drift into them—for reasons that are quite different from the reasons why people enter into marriage. Marriage has a very clear starting point; there are at the lowest vows in the registry office or at the highest vows in church. There is an established starting point. It is possible to say the marriage started on 3 July 1961 but that is not so with de facto relationships. I have previously offered in Parliament this challenge: when does a de facto relationship start? Does it start with the first furtive kiss in the dark in a picture theatre or does it start with the first act of coitus? 
These are quite tricky issues that have implications for property and they may well have implications for the care of children. The Government has decided to fudge that or to be more correct—but the Government has endorsed it—the majority of members on the Justice and Electoral Committee decided they did not want to establish any tests as to what a de facto relationship was. Instead they came to the view that a de facto relationship is a relationship between a man and a woman a man and a man or a woman and a woman who live together as a couple in a relationship in the nature of marriage or civil union. I think that for those who are strong on family values to contemplate a man and a man or a woman and a woman living together as a couple as being in a relationship in the nature of marriage is foolishness in the extreme. It is just not consonant with the values that an increasing number of people in civil society would like to see as the paradigm case. Yet the Government is determined to establish that the paradigm case may well include such relationships. 
It is really important that we value diversity in our community. I believe that it is really important that we are tolerant of relationships that are other than in the nature of marriage but this is a Government that is certainly not prepared to do that. That is why for my money if we had become involved in the whole issue of “When did the de facto relationship start?” or “What is a de facto relationship?” the indicators or indicia that the original draftspeople—I myself am in danger of falling into political correctness—proposed in drawing up this legislation might have been retained. What they wanted to do was to say that a de facto relationship is evidenced by these particular hallmarks which might include the duration of the relationship; the nature and extent of common residence; whether a sexual relationship exists; the degree of financial dependence or interdependence and any arrangements for financial support between the people; the ownership use and acquisition of property; the care and support of children; or the performance of household duties. 
But all of that has been abandoned and we are now being invited to accept a test that is simply this: the relationship between a man and a man is a de facto relationship if they are living together as a couple in a relationship in the nature of marriage. To me that strains incredibly the statutory language that has been established in the past. To me it is not consonant with family values. I make the point that although we must be tolerant of other relationships we should prefer those relationships that offer stability to society. 
A personal vote was called for on the question  
That the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 76 
Anderton(P) 
Duynhoven   
Laban (P) 
Samuels(P) 
Barker(P) 
Dyson(P) 
Locke   
Shirley(P) 
Barnett   
Ewen-Street   
Mackey J (P) 
Simich(P) 
Benson-Pope(P) 
Fairbrother(P) 
Mackey M 
Sowry(P) 
Beyer   
Fitzsimons(P) 
Maharey(P) 
Sutton(P) 
Bradford(P) 
Gallagher(P) 
Mahuta(P) 
Swain(P) 
Burton(P) 
Goff(P) 
Mallard(P) 
Tamihere(P) 
Carter C (P) 
Gosche(P) 
Mapp(P) 
Tanczos(P) 
Chadwick(P) 
Hartley(P) 
Mark(P) 
Tizard   
Choudhary(P) 
Hawkins(P) 
McCully(P) 
Turei(P) 
Clark(P) 
Hereora(P) 
O'Connor(P) 
Ward   
Coddington(P) 
Hide(P) 
Okeroa(P) 
Williamson(P) 
Cosgrove(P) 
Hobbs(P) 
Parker(P) 
Wilson(P) 
Cullen(P) 
Hodgson(P) 
Peck(P) 
Wong(P) 
Cunliffe(P) 
Horomia(P) 
Pillay(P) 
Yates 
Dalziel(P) 
Hughes   
Rich(P) 
Donald(P) 
Hunt(P) 
Ririnui(P) 
Donnelly(P) 
Kedgley(P) 
Robertson(P) 
Duncan(P) 
Key(P) 
Robson(P) 
Teller: 
Dunne(P) 
King(P) 
Roy(P) 
Pettis   
Noes 43 
Adams   
Copeland(P) 
Ogilvy(P) 
Stewart(P) 
Alexander(P) 
Eckhoff(P) 
Paraone(P) 
te Heuheu  
Ardern(P) 
English(P) 
Perry(P) 
Turia(P) 
Baldock(P) 
Field(P) 
Peters J (P) 
Turner(P) 
Brash(P) 
Franks   
Peters W (P) 
Woolerton(P) 
Brown(P) 
Goudie(P) 
Power(P) 
Worth(P) 
Brownlee(P) 
Gudgeon(P) 
Prebble(P) 
Carter D (P) 
Heatley(P) 
Ryall(P) 
Carter J (P) 
Hutchison(P) 
Scott(P) 
Catchpole   
Jones   
Smith L (P) 
Collins(P) 
McNair(P) 
Smith M (P) 
Teller: 
Connell(P) 
Newman(P) 
Smith N (P) 
Tisch   
Bill read a third time. 
A personal vote was called for on the question  
That the Administration Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a third time. 
Ayes 76 
Anderton(P) 
Duynhoven   
Laban(P) 
Samuels(P) 
Barker(P) 
Dyson(P) 
Locke   
Shirley(P) 
Barnett   
Ewen-Street(P) 
Mackey J (P) 
Simich(P) 
Benson-Pope(P) 
Fairbrother(P) 
Mackey M 
Sowry(P) 
Beyer   
Fitzsimons(P) 
Maharey(P) 
Sutton(P) 
Bradford(P) 
Gallagher(P) 
Mahuta(P) 
Swain(P) 
Burton(P) 
Goff(P) 
Mallard(P) 
Tamihere(P) 
Carter C (P) 
Gosche(P) 
Mapp(P) 
Tanczos(P) 
Chadwick(P) 
Hartley(P) 
Mark(P) 
Tizard   
Choudhary(P) 
Hawkins(P) 
McCully(P) 
Turei(P) 
Clark(P) 
Hereora(P) 
O'Connor(P) 
Ward(P) 
Coddington(P) 
Hide(P) 
Okeroa(P) 
Williamson(P) 
Cosgrove(P) 
Hobbs(P) 
Parker(P) 
Wilson(P) 
Cullen(P) 
Hodgson(P) 
Peck(P) 
Wong(P) 
Cunliffe(P) 
Horomia(P) 
Pillay(P) 
Yates (P) 
Dalziel(P) 
Hughes(P) 
Rich(P) 
Donald(P) 
Hunt(P) 
Ririnui(P) 
Donnelly(P) 
Kedgley(P) 
Robertson(P) 
Duncan(P) 
Key(P) 
Robson(P) 
Teller: 
Dunne(P) 
King(P) 
Roy(P) 
Pettis   
Noes 44 
Adams   
Copeland(P) 
Ogilvy(P) 
Stewart(P) 
Alexander(P) 
Eckhoff(P) 
Paraone(P) 
te Heuheu(P) 
Ardern(P) 
English(P) 
Perry(P) 
Turia(P) 
Baldock(P) 
Field(P) 
Peters J (P) 
Turner(P) 
Brash(P) 
Franks   
Peters W (P) 
Wang(P) 
Brown (P) 
Goudie(P) 
Power(P) 
Woolerton(P) 
Brownlee(P) 
Gudgeon(P) 
Prebble(P) 
Worth(P) 
Carter D (P) 
Heatley(P) 
Ryall(P) 
Carter J (P) 
Hutchison(P) 
Scott(P) 
Catchpole   
Jones   
Smith L (P) 
Collins(P) 
McNair(P) 
Smith M (P) 
Teller: 
Connell(P) 
Newman(P) 
Smith N (P) 
Tisch   
Bill read a third time. 
JILL PETTIS (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I would just like to draw attention to the fact that on the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill voting there was an error on the part of the tellers in that we omitted to include Winnie Laban’s name. She had given us her proxy to vote in favour of the bill. I seek leave for that to be corrected. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There appears to be none. 
A personal vote was called for on the question  
That the Care of Children Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 76 
Anderton(P) 
Duynhoven   
Laban(P) 
Samuels(P) 
Barker(P) 
Dyson(P) 
Locke   
Shirley(P) 
Barnett (P) 
Ewen-Street(P) 
Mackey J (P) 
Simich(P) 
Benson-Pope(P) 
Fairbrother(P) 
Mackey M 
Sowry(P) 
Beyer   
Fitzsimons(P) 
Maharey(P) 
Sutton(P) 
Bradford(P) 
Gallagher(P) 
Mahuta(P) 
Swain(P) 
Burton(P) 
Goff(P) 
Mallard(P) 
Tamihere(P) 
Carter C (P) 
Gosche(P) 
Mapp(P) 
Tanczos(P) 
Chadwick(P) 
Hartley(P) 
Mark(P) 
Tizard   
Choudhary(P) 
Hawkins(P) 
McCully(P) 
Turei(P) 
Clark  (P) 
Hereora(P) 
O'Connor(P) 
Ward(P) 
Coddington(P) 
Hide(P) 
Okeroa(P) 
Williamson(P) 
Cosgrove(P) 
Hobbs(P) 
Parker(P) 
Wilson(P) 
Cullen(P) 
Hodgson(P) 
Peck(P) 
Wong(P) 
Cunliffe(P) 
Horomia(P) 
Pillay(P) 
Yates (P) 
Dalziel(P) 
Hughes 
Rich(P) 
Donald(P) 
Hunt(P) 
Ririnui(P) 
Donnelly(P) 
Kedgley(P) 
Robertson(P) 
Duncan(P) 
Key(P) 
Robson(P) 
Teller: 
Dunne(P) 
King(P) 
Roy(P) 
Pettis   
Noes 44 
Adams   
Copeland(P) 
Ogilvy(P) 
Stewart(P) 
Alexander(P) 
Eckhoff(P) 
Paraone(P) 
te Heuheu(P) 
Ardern(P) 
English(P) 
Perry(P) 
Turia(P) 
Baldock(P) 
Field(P) 
Peters J (P) 
Turner(P) 
Brash(P) 
Franks   
Peters W (P) 
Wang(P) 
Brown (P) 
Goudie(P) 
Power(P) 
Woolerton(P) 
Brownlee(P) 
Gudgeon(P) 
Prebble(P) 
Worth(P) 
Carter D (P) 
Heatley(P) 
Ryall(P) 
Carter J (P) 
Hutchison(P) 
Scott(P) 
Catchpole   
Jones   
Smith L (P) 
Collins(P) 
McNair(P) 
Smith M (P) 
Teller: 
Connell(P) 
Newman(P) 
Smith N (P) 
Tisch   
Bill read a third time. 
A personal vote was called for on the question  
That the Child Support Amendment Bill (No 3) be now read a third time. 
Ayes 76 
Anderton(P) 
Duynhoven   
Laban(P) 
Samuels(P) 
Barker(P) 
Dyson(P) 
Locke (P) 
Shirley(P) 
Barnett (P) 
Ewen-Street(P) 
Mackey J (P) 
Simich(P) 
Benson-Pope(P) 
Fairbrother(P) 
Mackey M 
Sowry(P) 
Beyer   
Fitzsimons(P) 
Maharey(P) 
Sutton(P) 
Bradford(P) 
Gallagher(P) 
Mahuta(P) 
Swain(P) 
Burton(P) 
Goff(P) 
Mallard(P) 
Tamihere(P) 
Carter C (P) 
Gosche(P) 
Mapp(P) 
Tanczos(P) 
Chadwick(P) 
Hartley(P) 
Mark(P) 
Tizard   
Choudhary(P) 
Hawkins(P) 
McCully(P) 
Turei 
Clark(P) 
Hereora(P) 
O'Connor(P) 
Ward(P) 
Coddington(P) 
Hide(P) 
Okeroa(P) 
Williamson(P) 
Cosgrove(P) 
Hobbs(P) 
Parker(P) 
Wilson(P) 
Cullen(P) 
Hodgson(P) 
Peck(P) 
Wong(P) 
Cunliffe(P) 
Horomia(P) 
Pillay(P) 
Yates (P) 
Dalziel(P) 
Hughes(P) 
Rich(P) 
Donald(P) 
Hunt(P) 
Ririnui(P) 
Donnelly(P) 
Kedgley(P) 
Robertson(P) 
Duncan(P) 
Key(P) 
Robson(P) 
Teller: 
Dunne(P) 
King(P) 
Roy(P) 
Pettis   
Noes 44 
Adams   
Copeland(P) 
Ogilvy(P) 
Stewart(P) 
Alexander(P) 
Eckhoff(P) 
Paraone(P) 
te Heuheu(P) 
Ardern(P) 
English(P) 
Perry(P) 
Turia(P) 
Baldock(P) 
Field(P) 
Peters J (P) 
Turner(P) 
Brash(P) 
Franks   
Peters W (P) 
Wang(P) 
Brown (P) 
Goudie(P) 
Power(P) 
Woolerton(P) 
Brownlee(P) 
Gudgeon(P) 
Prebble(P) 
Worth(P) 
Carter D (P) 
Heatley(P) 
Ryall(P) 
Carter J (P) 
Hutchison(P) 
Scott(P) 
Catchpole   
Jones   
Smith L (P) 
Collins(P) 
McNair(P) 
Smith M (P) 
Teller: 
Connell(P) 
Newman(P) 
Smith N (P) 
Tisch   
Bill read a third time. 
A personal vote was called for on the question  
That the Deaths by Accidents Compensation Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 76 
Anderton(P) 
Duynhoven   
Laban(P) 
Samuels(P) 
Barker(P) 
Dyson(P) 
Locke (P) 
Shirley(P) 
Barnett (P) 
Ewen-Street(P) 
Mackey J (P) 
Simich(P) 
Benson-Pope(P) 
Fairbrother(P) 
Mackey M 
Sowry(P) 
Beyer   
Fitzsimons(P) 
Maharey(P) 
Sutton(P) 
Bradford(P) 
Gallagher(P) 
Mahuta(P) 
Swain(P) 
Burton(P) 
Goff(P) 
Mallard(P) 
Tamihere(P) 
Carter C (P) 
Gosche(P) 
Mapp(P) 
Tanczos(P) 
Chadwick(P) 
Hartley(P) 
Mark(P) 
Tizard   
Choudhary(P) 
Hawkins(P) 
McCully(P) 
Turei   
Clark(P) 
Hereora(P) 
O'Connor(P) 
Ward(P) 
Coddington(P) 
Hide(P) 
Okeroa(P) 
Williamson(P) 
Cosgrove(P) 
Hobbs(P) 
Parker(P) 
Wilson(P) 
Cullen(P) 
Hodgson(P) 
Peck(P) 
Wong(P) 
Cunliffe(P) 
Horomia(P) 
Pillay(P) 
Yates (P) 
Dalziel(P) 
Hughes 
Rich(P) 
Donald(P) 
Hunt(P) 
Ririnui(P) 
Donnelly(P) 
Kedgley(P) 
Robertson(P) 
Duncan(P) 
Key(P) 
Robson(P) 
Teller: 
Dunne(P) 
King(P) 
Roy(P) 
Pettis   
Noes 44 
Adams   
Copeland(P) 
Ogilvy(P) 
te Heuheu(P) 
Alexander(P) 
Eckhoff(P) 
Paraone(P) 
Tisch 
Ardern(P) 
English(P) 
Perry(P) 
Turia(P) 
Baldock(P) 
Field(P) 
Peters J (P) 
Turner(P) 
Brash(P) 
Franks   
Peters W (P) 
Wang(P) 
Brown (P) 
Goudie(P) 
Power(P) 
Woolerton(P) 
Brownlee(P) 
Gudgeon(P) 
Prebble(P) 
Worth(P) 
Carter D (P) 
Heatley(P) 
Ryall(P) 
Carter J (P) 
Hutchison(P) 
Smith L (P) 
Catchpole   
Jones (P) 
Smith M (P) 
Collins(P) 
McNair(P) 
Smith N (P) 
Teller: 
Connell   
Newman(P) 
Stewart(P) 
Scott   
Bill read a third time. 
A personal vote was called for on the question  
That the Estate and Gift Duties Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 76 
Anderton(P) 
Duynhoven   
Laban(P) 
Samuels(P) 
Barker(P) 
Dyson(P) 
Locke (P) 
Shirley(P) 
Barnett (P) 
Ewen-Street(P) 
Mackey J (P) 
Simich(P) 
Benson-Pope(P) 
Fairbrother(P) 
Mackey M 
Sowry(P) 
Beyer   
Fitzsimons(P) 
Maharey(P) 
Sutton(P) 
Bradford(P) 
Gallagher   
Mahuta(P) 
Swain(P) 
Burton(P) 
Goff(P) 
Mallard(P) 
Tamihere(P) 
Carter C (P) 
Gosche(P) 
Mapp(P) 
Tanczos(P) 
Chadwick(P) 
Hartley(P) 
Mark(P) 
Tizard   
Choudhary(P) 
Hawkins(P) 
McCully(P) 
Turei   
Clark(P) 
Hereora(P) 
O'Connor(P) 
Ward(P) 
Coddington(P) 
Hide(P) 
Okeroa(P) 
Williamson(P) 
Cosgrove(P) 
Hobbs(P) 
Parker(P) 
Wilson(P) 
Cullen(P) 
Hodgson(P) 
Peck(P) 
Wong(P) 
Cunliffe(P) 
Horomia(P) 
Pillay(P) 
Yates (P) 
Dalziel(P) 
Hughes   
Rich(P) 
Donald(P) 
Hunt(P) 
Ririnui(P) 
Donnelly(P) 
Kedgley(P) 
Robertson(P) 
Duncan(P) 
Key(P) 
Robson(P) 
Teller: 
Dunne(P) 
King(P) 
Roy(P) 
Pettis   
Noes 44 
Adams   
Copeland(P) 
Paraone(P) 
te Heuheu(P) 
Alexander(P) 
Eckhoff(P) 
Perry(P) 
Turia(P) 
Ardern(P) 
English(P) 
Peters J (P) 
Turner(P) 
Baldock(P) 
Franks   
Peters W (P) 
Wang(P) 
Brash(P) 
Goudie(P) 
Power(P) 
Woolerton(P) 
Brown (P) 
Gudgeon(P) 
Prebble(P) 
Worth(P) 
Brownlee(P) 
Heatley(P) 
Ryall(P) 
Carter D (P) 
Hutchison(P) 
Scott(P) 
Carter J (P) 
Jones   
Smith L (P) 
Catchpole   
McNair(P) 
Smith M (P) 
Collins(P) 
Newman(P) 
Smith N (P) 
Teller: 
Connell   
Ogilvy(P) 
Stewart(P) 
Tisch   
Bill read a third time. 
A personal vote was called for on the question  
That the Goods and Services Tax Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 76 
Anderton(P) 
Duynhoven   
Laban(P) 
Samuels(P) 
Barker(P) 
Dyson(P) 
Locke (P) 
Shirley(P) 
Barnett (P) 
Ewen-Street(P) 
Mackey J (P) 
Simich(P) 
Benson-Pope(P) 
Fairbrother(P) 
Mackey M (P) 
Sowry(P) 
Beyer   
Fitzsimons(P) 
Maharey(P) 
Sutton(P) 
Bradford(P) 
Gallagher   
Mahuta(P) 
Swain(P) 
Burton(P) 
Goff(P) 
Mallard(P) 
Tamihere(P) 
Carter C (P) 
Gosche(P) 
Mapp(P) 
Tanczos(P) 
Chadwick(P) 
Hartley(P) 
Mark(P) 
Tizard   
Choudhary(P) 
Hawkins(P) 
McCully(P) 
Turei   
Clark(P) 
Hereora(P) 
O'Connor(P) 
Ward(P) 
Coddington(P) 
Hide(P) 
Okeroa(P) 
Williamson(P) 
Cosgrove(P) 
Hobbs(P) 
Parker(P) 
Wilson(P) 
Cullen(P) 
Hodgson(P) 
Peck(P) 
Wong(P) 
Cunliffe(P) 
Horomia(P) 
Pillay(P) 
Yates (P) 
Dalziel(P) 
Hughes   
Rich(P) 
Donald(P) 
Hunt(P) 
Ririnui(P) 
Donnelly(P) 
Kedgley(P) 
Robertson(P) 
Duncan(P) 
Key(P) 
Robson(P) 
Teller: 
Dunne(P) 
King(P) 
Roy(P) 
Pettis   
Noes 44 
Adams   
Copeland(P) 
Ogilvy(P) 
Stewart(P) 
Alexander(P) 
Eckhoff(P) 
Paraone(P) 
te Heuheu(P) 
Ardern(P) 
English(P) 
Perry(P) 
Turia(P) 
Baldock(P) 
Field(P) 
Peters J (P) 
Turner(P) 
Brash(P) 
Franks   
Peters W (P) 
Wang(P) 
Brown (P) 
Goudie(P) 
Power(P) 
Woolerton(P) 
Brownlee(P) 
Gudgeon(P) 
Prebble(P) 
Worth(P) 
Carter D (P) 
Heatley(P) 
Ryall(P) 
Carter J (P) 
Hutchison(P) 
Scott(P) 
Catchpole   
Jones   
Smith L (P) 
Collins(P) 
McNair(P) 
Smith M (P) 
Teller: 
Connell   
Newman(P) 
Smith N (P) 
Tisch   
Bill read a third time. 
A personal vote was called for on the question  
That the Government Superannuation Fund Amendment Bill (No 4) be now read a third time. 
Ayes 72 
Anderton(P) 
Duynhoven (P) 
Laban(P) 
Samuels(P) 
Barker(P) 
Dyson(P) 
Locke (P) 
Simich(P) 
Barnett (P) 
Ewen-Street   
Mackey J (P) 
Sowry(P) 
Benson-Pope(P) 
Fairbrother(P) 
Mackey M (P) 
Sutton(P) 
Beyer   
Fitzsimons(P) 
Maharey(P) 
Swain(P) 
Bradford(P) 
Gallagher(P) 
Mahuta(P) 
Tamihere(P) 
Burton(P) 
Goff(P) 
Mallard(P) 
Tanczos(P) 
Carter C (P) 
Gosche(P) 
Mapp(P) 
Tizard (P) 
Chadwick(P) 
Hartley(P) 
Mark(P) 
Turei(P) 
Choudhary(P) 
Hawkins(P) 
McCully(P) 
Ward(P) 
Clark(P) 
Hereora(P) 
O'Connor(P) 
Williamson(P) 
Cosgrove(P) 
Hobbs 
Okeroa(P) 
Wilson(P) 
Cullen(P) 
Hodgson(P) 
Parker(P) 
Wong(P) 
Cunliffe(P) 
Horomia(P) 
Peck(P) 
Yates   
Dalziel(P) 
Hughes(P) 
Pillay(P) 
Donald(P) 
Hunt(P) 
Rich(P) 
Donnelly(P) 
Kedgley(P) 
Ririnui(P) 
Duncan(P) 
Key(P) 
Robertson(P) 
Teller: 
Dunne(P) 
King(P) 
Robson(P) 
Pettis   
Noes 48 
Adams (P) 
Copeland(P) 
Ogilvy(P) 
Stewart(P) 
Alexander(P) 
Eckhoff(P) 
Paraone(P) 
te Heuheu(P) 
Ardern(P) 
English(P) 
Perry(P) 
Tisch (P) 
Baldock(P) 
Field(P) 
Peters J (P) 
Turia(P) 
Brash(P) 
Franks   
Peters W (P) 
Turner   
Brown (P) 
Goudie(P) 
Power(P) 
Wang(P) 
Brownlee(P) 
Gudgeon(P) 
Prebble(P) 
Woolerton(P) 
Carter D (P) 
Heatley(P) 
Roy (P) 
Worth(P) 
Carter J (P) 
Hide (P) 
Ryall(P) 
Catchpole (P) 
Hutchison(P) 
Shirley (P) 
Coddington (P) 
Jones   
Smith L (P) 
Collins(P) 
McNair(P) 
Smith M (P) 
Teller: 
Connell(P) 
Newman(P) 
Smith N (P) 
Scott   
Bill read a third time. 
A personal vote was called for on the question  
That the Income Tax Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 77 
Anderton(P) 
Duynhoven (P) 
King(P) 
Roy(P) 
Barker(P) 
Dyson(P) 
Laban(P) 
Samuels(P) 
Barnett (P) 
Ewen-Street   
Locke   
Shirley(P) 
Benson-Pope(P) 
Fairbrother(P) 
Mackey J (P) 
Simich(P) 
Beyer   
Fitzsimons  (P) 
Mackey M (P) 
Sowry(P) 
Bradford(P) 
Franks 
Maharey(P) 
Sutton(P) 
Burton(P) 
Gallagher(P) 
Mahuta(P) 
Swain(P) 
Carter C (P) 
Goff(P) 
Mallard(P) 
Tamihere(P) 
Chadwick(P) 
Gosche(P) 
Mapp(P) 
Tanczos(P) 
Choudhary(P) 
Hartley(P) 
Mark(P) 
Tizard (P) 
Clark(P) 
Hawkins(P) 
McCully(P) 
Turei(P) 
Coddington(P) 
Hereora(P) 
O'Connor(P) 
Ward(P) 
Cosgrove(P) 
Hide(P) 
Okeroa(P) 
Williamson(P) 
Cullen(P) 
Hobbs   
Parker(P) 
Wilson(P) 
Cunliffe(P) 
Hodgson(P) 
Peck(P) 
Wong(P) 
Dalziel(P) 
Horomia(P) 
Pillay(P) 
Yates (P) 
Donald(P) 
Hughes(P) 
Rich(P) 
Donnelly   
Hunt(P) 
Ririnui(P) 
Duncan(P) 
Kedgley(P) 
Robertson(P) 
Teller: 
Dunne(P) 
Key(P) 
Robson(P) 
Pettis   
Noes 43 
Adams (P) 
Copeland(P) 
Paraone(P) 
Tisch (P) 
Alexander(P) 
Eckhoff(P) 
Perry(P) 
Turia(P) 
Ardern(P) 
English(P) 
Peters J (P) 
Turner   
Baldock(P) 
Field   
Peters W (P) 
Wang(P) 
Brash(P) 
Goudie(P) 
Power(P) 
Woolerton(P) 
Brown (P) 
Gudgeon(P) 
Prebble(P) 
Worth(P) 
Brownlee(P) 
Heatley(P) 
Ryall(P) 
Carter D (P) 
Hutchison(P) 
Smith L (P) 
Carter J (P) 
Jones (P) 
Smith M (P) 
Catchpole (P) 
McNair(P) 
Smith N (P) 
Collins(P) 
Newman(P) 
Stewart(P) 
Teller: 
Connell(P) 
Ogilvy(P) 
te Heuheu(P) 
Scott   
Bill read a third time. 
A personal vote was called for on the question  
That the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 4) be now read a third time. 
Ayes 76 
Anderton(P) 
Duynhoven (P) 
Laban(P) 
Samuels(P) 
Barker(P) 
Dyson(P) 
Locke (P) 
Shirley(P) 
Barnett (P) 
Ewen-Street(P) 
Mackey J (P) 
Simich(P) 
Benson-Pope(P) 
Fairbrother(P) 
Mackey M 
Sowry(P) 
Beyer   
Fitzsimons(P) 
Maharey(P) 
Sutton(P) 
Bradford(P) 
Gallagher(P) 
Mahuta(P) 
Swain(P) 
Burton(P) 
Goff(P) 
Mallard(P) 
Tamihere(P) 
Carter C (P) 
Gosche(P) 
Mapp(P) 
Tanczos(P) 
Chadwick(P) 
Hartley(P) 
Mark(P) 
Tizard (P) 
Choudhary(P) 
Hawkins(P) 
McCully(P) 
Turei(P) 
Clark(P) 
Hereora(P) 
O'Connor(P) 
Ward(P) 
Coddington(P) 
Hide(P) 
Okeroa(P) 
Williamson(P) 
Cosgrove(P) 
Hobbs   
Parker(P) 
Wilson(P) 
Cullen(P) 
Hodgson(P) 
Peck(P) 
Wong(P) 
Cunliffe(P) 
Horomia(P) 
Pillay(P) 
Yates   
Dalziel(P) 
Hughes(P) 
Rich(P) 
Donald(P) 
Hunt(P) 
Ririnui(P) 
Donnelly   
Kedgley(P) 
Robertson(P) 
Duncan(P) 
Key(P) 
Robson(P) 
Teller: 
Dunne(P) 
King(P) 
Roy(P) 
Pettis   
Noes 44 
Adams (P) 
Copeland(P) 
Ogilvy(P) 
te Heuheu(P) 
Alexander(P) 
Eckhoff(P) 
Paraone(P) 
Tisch (P) 
Ardern(P) 
English(P) 
Perry(P) 
Turia(P) 
Baldock(P) 
Field   
Peters J (P) 
Turner   
Brash(P) 
Franks   
Peters W (P) 
Wang(P) 
Brown (P) 
Goudie(P) 
Power(P) 
Woolerton(P) 
Brownlee(P) 
Gudgeon(P) 
Prebble(P) 
Worth(P) 
Carter D (P) 
Heatley(P) 
Ryall(P) 
Carter J (P) 
Hutchison(P) 
Smith L (P) 
Catchpole (P) 
Jones (P) 
Smith M (P) 
Collins(P) 
McNair(P) 
Smith N (P) 
Teller: 
Connell(P) 
Newman(P) 
Stewart(P) 
Scott 
Bill read a third time. 
A personal vote was called for on the question  
That the Interpretation Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 76 
Anderton(P) 
Duynhoven (P) 
Laban(P) 
Samuels(P) 
Barker(P) 
Dyson(P) 
Locke (P) 
Shirley(P) 
Barnett (P) 
Ewen-Street   
Mackey J (P) 
Simich(P) 
Benson-Pope(P) 
Fairbrother(P) 
Mackey M 
Sowry(P) 
Beyer   
Fitzsimons(P) 
Maharey(P) 
Sutton(P) 
Bradford(P) 
Gallagher(P) 
Mahuta(P) 
Swain(P) 
Burton(P) 
Goff(P) 
Mallard(P) 
Tamihere(P) 
Carter C (P) 
Gosche(P) 
Mapp(P) 
Tanczos(P) 
Chadwick(P) 
Hartley(P) 
Mark(P) 
Tizard (P) 
Choudhary(P) 
Hawkins(P) 
McCully(P) 
Turei(P) 
Clark(P) 
Hereora(P) 
O'Connor(P) 
Ward(P) 
Coddington(P) 
Hide(P) 
Okeroa(P) 
Williamson(P) 
Cosgrove(P) 
Hobbs   
Parker(P) 
Wilson(P) 
Cullen(P) 
Hodgson(P) 
Peck(P) 
Wong(P) 
Cunliffe(P) 
Horomia(P) 
Pillay(P) 
Yates   
Dalziel(P) 
Hughes(P) 
Rich(P) 
Donald(P) 
Hunt(P) 
Ririnui(P) 
Donnelly   
Kedgley(P) 
Robertson(P) 
Duncan(P) 
Key(P) 
Robson(P) 
Teller: 
Dunne(P) 
King(P) 
Roy(P) 
Pettis   
Noes 44 
Adams (P) 
Copeland(P) 
Ogilvy(P) 
te Heuheu(P) 
Alexander(P) 
Eckhoff(P) 
Paraone(P) 
Tisch (P) 
Ardern(P) 
English(P) 
Perry(P) 
Turia(P) 
Baldock(P) 
Field   
Peters J (P) 
Turner   
Brash(P) 
Franks   
Peters W (P) 
Wang(P) 
Brown (P) 
Goudie(P) 
Power(P) 
Woolerton(P) 
Brownlee(P) 
Gudgeon(P) 
Prebble(P) 
Worth(P) 
Carter D (P) 
Heatley(P) 
Ryall(P) 
Carter J (P) 
Hutchison(P) 
Smith L (P) 
Catchpole (P) 
Jones (P) 
Smith M (P) 
Collins(P) 
McNair(P) 
Smith N (P) 
Teller: 
Connell(P) 
Newman(P) 
Stewart(P) 
Scott   
Bill read a third time. 
A personal vote was called for on the question  
That the Life Insurance Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a third time. 
Ayes 76 
Anderton(P) 
Duynhoven (P) 
Laban(P) 
Samuels(P) 
Barker(P) 
Dyson(P) 
Locke (P) 
Shirley(P) 
Barnett (P) 
Ewen-Street   
Mackey J (P) 
Simich(P) 
Benson-Pope(P) 
Fairbrother(P) 
Mackey M 
Sowry(P) 
Beyer   
Fitzsimons(P) 
Maharey(P) 
Sutton(P) 
Bradford(P) 
Gallagher(P) 
Mahuta(P) 
Swain(P) 
Burton(P) 
Goff(P) 
Mallard(P) 
Tamihere(P) 
Carter C (P) 
Gosche(P) 
Mapp(P) 
Tanczos(P) 
Chadwick(P) 
Hartley(P) 
Mark(P) 
Tizard (P) 
Choudhary(P) 
Hawkins(P) 
McCully(P) 
Turei(P) 
Clark(P) 
Hereora(P) 
O'Connor(P) 
Ward(P) 
Coddington(P) 
Hide(P) 
Okeroa(P) 
Williamson(P) 
Cosgrove(P) 
Hobbs   
Parker(P) 
Wilson(P) 
Cullen(P) 
Hodgson(P) 
Peck(P) 
Wong(P) 
Cunliffe(P) 
Horomia(P) 
Pillay(P) 
Yates   
Dalziel(P) 
Hughes(P) 
Rich(P) 
Donald(P) 
Hunt(P) 
Ririnui(P) 
Donnelly 
Kedgley(P) 
Robertson(P) 
Duncan(P) 
Key(P) 
Robson(P) 
Teller: 
Dunne(P) 
King(P) 
Roy(P) 
Pettis   
Noes 44 
Adams (P) 
Copeland(P) 
Ogilvy(P) 
te Heuheu(P) 
Alexander(P) 
Eckhoff(P) 
Paraone(P) 
Tisch (P) 
Ardern(P) 
English(P) 
Perry(P) 
Turia(P) 
Baldock(P) 
Field   
Peters J (P) 
Turner   
Brash(P) 
Franks   
Peters W (P) 
Wang(P) 
Brown (P) 
Goudie(P) 
Power(P) 
Woolerton(P) 
Brownlee(P) 
Gudgeon(P) 
Prebble(P) 
Worth(P) 
Carter D (P) 
Heatley(P) 
Ryall(P) 
Carter J (P) 
Hutchison(P) 
Smith L (P) 
Catchpole (P) 
Jones (P) 
Smith M (P) 
Collins(P) 
McNair(P) 
Smith N (P) 
Teller: 
Connell(P) 
Newman(P) 
Stewart(P) 
Scott   
Bill read a third time. 
A personal vote was called for on the question  
That the Marriage Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 76 
Anderton(P) 
Duynhoven (P) 
Laban(P) 
Samuels(P) 
Barker(P) 
Dyson(P) 
Locke (P) 
Shirley(P) 
Barnett (P) 
Ewen-Street   
Mackey J (P) 
Simich(P) 
Benson-Pope(P) 
Fairbrother(P) 
Mackey M 
Sowry(P) 
Beyer   
Fitzsimons(P) 
Maharey(P) 
Sutton(P) 
Bradford(P) 
Gallagher(P) 
Mahuta(P) 
Swain(P) 
Burton(P) 
Goff(P) 
Mallard(P) 
Tamihere(P) 
Carter C (P) 
Gosche(P) 
Mapp(P) 
Tanczos(P) 
Chadwick(P) 
Hartley(P) 
Mark(P) 
Tizard (P) 
Choudhary(P) 
Hawkins(P) 
McCully(P) 
Turei(P) 
Clark(P) 
Hereora(P) 
O'Connor(P) 
Ward(P) 
Coddington(P) 
Hide(P) 
Okeroa(P) 
Williamson(P) 
Cosgrove(P) 
Hobbs   
Parker(P) 
Wilson(P) 
Cullen(P) 
Hodgson(P) 
Peck(P) 
Wong(P) 
Cunliffe(P) 
Horomia(P) 
Pillay(P) 
Yates   
Dalziel(P) 
Hughes(P) 
Rich(P) 
Donald(P) 
Hunt(P) 
Ririnui(P) 
Donnelly   
Kedgley(P) 
Robertson(P) 
Duncan(P) 
Key(P) 
Robson(P) 
Teller: 
Dunne(P) 
King(P) 
Roy(P) 
Pettis   
Noes 44 
Adams (P) 
Copeland  (P) 
Ogilvy(P) 
te Heuheu(P) 
Alexander(P) 
Eckhoff(P) 
Paraone(P) 
Tisch (P) 
Ardern(P) 
English(P) 
Perry(P) 
Turia(P) 
Baldock(P) 
Field   
Peters J (P) 
Turner   
Brash(P) 
Franks   
Peters W (P) 
Wang(P) 
Brown   
Goudie(P) 
Power(P) 
Woolerton(P) 
Brownlee(P) 
Gudgeon(P) 
Prebble(P) 
Worth(P) 
Carter D (P) 
Heatley(P) 
Ryall(P) 
Carter J (P) 
Hutchison(P) 
Smith L (P) 
Catchpole (P) 
Jones (P) 
Smith M (P) 
Collins(P) 
McNair(P) 
Smith N (P) 
Teller: 
Connell(P) 
Newman(P) 
Stewart(P) 
Scott   
Bill read a third time. 
A personal vote was called for on the question  
That the Minors’ Contracts Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 76 
Anderton(P) 
Duynhoven (P) 
Laban(P) 
Samuels(P) 
Barker(P) 
Dyson(P) 
Locke (P) 
Shirley(P) 
Barnett (P) 
Ewen-Street   
Mackey J (P) 
Simich(P) 
Benson-Pope(P) 
Fairbrother(P) 
Mackey M 
Sowry(P) 
Beyer   
Fitzsimons(P) 
Maharey(P) 
Sutton(P) 
Bradford(P) 
Gallagher(P) 
Mahuta(P) 
Swain(P) 
Burton(P) 
Goff(P) 
Mallard(P) 
Tamihere(P) 
Carter C (P) 
Gosche(P) 
Mapp(P) 
Tanczos(P) 
Chadwick(P) 
Hartley(P) 
Mark(P) 
Tizard   
Choudhary(P) 
Hawkins(P) 
McCully(P) 
Turei(P) 
Clark(P) 
Hereora(P) 
O'Connor(P) 
Ward(P) 
Coddington(P) 
Hide(P) 
Okeroa(P) 
Williamson(P) 
Cosgrove(P) 
Hobbs   
Parker(P) 
Wilson(P) 
Cullen(P) 
Hodgson(P) 
Peck(P) 
Wong(P) 
Cunliffe(P) 
Horomia(P) 
Pillay(P) 
Yates   
Dalziel(P) 
Hughes(P) 
Rich(P) 
Donald(P) 
Hunt(P) 
Ririnui(P) 
Donnelly   
Kedgley(P) 
Robertson(P) 
Duncan(P) 
Key(P) 
Robson(P) 
Teller: 
Dunne(P) 
King(P) 
Roy(P) 
Pettis   
Noes 44 
Adams (P) 
Copeland(P) 
Ogilvy(P) 
te Heuheu(P) 
Alexander(P) 
Eckhoff(P) 
Paraone(P) 
Tisch (P) 
Ardern(P) 
English(P) 
Perry(P) 
Turia(P) 
Baldock(P) 
Field   
Peters J (P) 
Turner   
Brash(P) 
Franks   
Peters W (P) 
Wang(P) 
Brown   
Goudie(P) 
Power(P) 
Woolerton(P) 
Brownlee(P) 
Gudgeon(P) 
Prebble(P) 
Worth   
Carter D (P) 
Heatley(P) 
Ryall(P) 
Carter J (P) 
Hutchison(P) 
Smith L (P) 
Catchpole (P) 
Jones (P) 
Smith M (P) 
Collins(P) 
McNair(P) 
Smith N (P) 
Teller: 
Connell(P) 
Newman(P) 
Stewart(P) 
Scott   
Bill read a third time. 
A personal vote was called for on the question  
That the New Zealand Superannuation Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a third time. 
Ayes 76 
Anderton(P) 
Duynhoven (P) 
Laban(P) 
Samuels(P) 
Barker(P) 
Dyson(P) 
Locke (P) 
Shirley(P) 
Barnett (P) 
Ewen-Street(P) 
Mackey J (P) 
Simich(P) 
Benson-Pope(P) 
Fairbrother(P) 
Mackey M 
Sowry(P) 
Beyer   
Fitzsimons(P) 
Maharey(P) 
Sutton(P) 
Bradford(P) 
Gallagher(P) 
Mahuta(P) 
Swain(P) 
Burton(P) 
Goff(P) 
Mallard(P) 
Tamihere(P) 
Carter C (P) 
Gosche(P) 
Mapp(P) 
Tanczos(P) 
Chadwick(P) 
Hartley(P) 
Mark(P) 
Tizard (P) 
Choudhary(P) 
Hawkins(P) 
McCully(P) 
Turei(P) 
Clark(P) 
Hereora(P) 
O'Connor(P) 
Ward(P) 
Coddington(P) 
Hide(P) 
Okeroa(P) 
Williamson(P) 
Cosgrove(P) 
Hobbs   
Parker(P) 
Wilson(P) 
Cullen(P) 
Hodgson(P) 
Peck(P) 
Wong(P) 
Cunliffe(P) 
Horomia(P) 
Pillay(P) 
Yates   
Dalziel(P) 
Hughes   
Rich(P) 
Donald(P) 
Hunt(P) 
Ririnui(P) 
Donnelly   
Kedgley(P) 
Robertson(P) 
Duncan(P) 
Key(P) 
Robson(P) 
Teller: 
Dunne(P) 
King(P) 
Roy(P) 
Pettis   
Noes 44 
Adams (P) 
Copeland(P) 
Ogilvy(P) 
te Heuheu(P) 
Alexander(P) 
Eckhoff(P) 
Paraone(P) 
Tisch (P) 
Ardern(P) 
English(P) 
Perry(P) 
Turia(P) 
Baldock(P) 
Field   
Peters J (P) 
Turner   
Brash(P) 
Franks   
Peters W (P) 
Wang(P) 
Brown (P) 
Goudie(P) 
Power(P) 
Woolerton(P) 
Brownlee(P) 
Gudgeon(P) 
Prebble(P) 
Worth(P) 
Carter D (P) 
Heatley(P) 
Ryall(P) 
Carter J (P) 
Hutchison(P) 
Smith L (P) 
Catchpole (P) 
Jones (P) 
Smith M (P) 
Collins(P) 
McNair(P) 
Smith N (P) 
Teller: 
Connell(P) 
Newman(P) 
Stewart(P) 
Scott   
Bill read a third time. 
A personal vote was called for on the question  
That the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a third time. 
Ayes 76 
Anderton(P) 
Duynhoven (P) 
Locke (P) 
Samuels(P) 
Barker(P) 
Dyson(P) 
Mackey J (P) 
Shirley(P) 
Barnett (P) 
Ewen-Street   
Mackey M 
Simich(P) 
Benson-Pope (P) 
Fairbrother (P) 
Maharey(P) 
Sowry(P) 
Beyer   
Fitzsimons(P) 
Mahuta(P) 
Sutton(P) 
Bradford(P) 
Gallagher(P) 
Mallard(P) 
Swain(P) 
Burton(P) 
Goff(P) 
Mapp(P) 
Tamihere(P) 
Carter C (P) 
Gosche(P) 
Mark(P) 
Tanczos(P) 
Chadwick(P) 
Hartley(P) 
McCully(P) 
Tizard   
Choudhary(P) 
Hawkins(P) 
O'Connor(P) 
Turei(P) 
Clark(P) 
Hereora(P) 
Okeroa(P) 
Ward(P) 
Coddington(P) 
Hide  (P) 
Parker(P) 
Williamson(P) 
Cosgrove(P) 
Hobbs   
Peck(P) 
Wilson(P) 
Cullen(P) 
Hodgson(P) 
Pettis (P) 
Wong(P) 
Cunliffe(P) 
Horomia(P) 
Pillay(P) 
Yates   
Dalziel(P) 
Hunt(P) 
Rich(P) 
Donald(P) 
Kedgley(P) 
Ririnui(P) 
Donnelly   
Key  
Robertson(P) 
Duncan(P) 
King(P) 
Robson(P) 
Teller: 
Dunne(P) 
Laban(P) 
Roy(P) 
Hughes   
Noes 44 
Adams (P) 
Copeland(P) 
Ogilvy(P) 
te Heuheu(P) 
Alexander(P) 
Eckhoff(P) 
Paraone(P) 
Tisch (P) 
Ardern(P) 
English(P) 
Perry(P) 
Turia(P) 
Baldock(P) 
Field   
Peters J (P) 
Turner   
Brash(P) 
Franks   
Peters W (P) 
Wang(P) 
Brown (P) 
Goudie(P) 
Power(P) 
Woolerton(P) 
Brownlee(P) 
Gudgeon(P) 
Prebble(P) 
Worth(P) 
Carter D (P) 
Heatley(P) 
Ryall(P) 
Carter J (P) 
Hutchison(P) 
Smith L (P) 
Catchpole (P) 
Jones (P) 
Smith M (P) 
Collins(P) 
McNair(P) 
Smith N (P) 
Teller: 
Connell(P) 
Newman(P) 
Stewart(P) 
Scott   
Bill read a third time. 
A personal vote was called for on the question  
That the Property (Relationships) Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
Ayes 76 
Anderton(P) 
Duynhoven (P) 
Locke (P) 
Samuels(P) 
Barker(P) 
Dyson(P) 
Mackey J (P) 
Shirley(P) 
Barnett (P) 
Ewen-Street   
Mackey M (P) 
Simich(P) 
Benson-Pope(P) 
Fairbrother (P) 
Maharey(P) 
Sowry(P) 
Beyer (P) 
Fitzsimons(P) 
Mahuta(P) 
Sutton(P) 
Bradford(P) 
Gallagher(P) 
Mallard(P) 
Swain(P) 
Burton(P) 
Goff(P) 
Mapp(P) 
Tamihere(P) 
Carter C (P) 
Gosche(P) 
Mark(P) 
Tanczos(P) 
Chadwick(P) 
Hartley(P) 
McCully(P) 
Tizard   
Choudhary(P) 
Hawkins(P) 
O'Connor(P) 
Turei(P) 
Clark(P) 
Hereora(P) 
Okeroa(P) 
Ward(P) 
Coddington(P) 
Hide(P) 
Parker(P) 
Williamson(P) 
Cosgrove(P) 
Hobbs   
Peck(P) 
Wilson(P) 
Cullen(P) 
Hodgson(P) 
Pettis (P) 
Wong(P) 
Cunliffe(P) 
Horomia(P) 
Pillay(P) 
Yates   
Dalziel(P) 
Hunt(P) 
Rich(P) 
Donald(P) 
Kedgley(P) 
Ririnui(P) 
Donnelly   
Key(P) 
Robertson(P) 
Duncan(P) 
King(P) 
Robson(P) 
Teller: 
Dunne(P) 
Laban(P) 
Roy(P) 
Hughes   
Noes 44 
Adams (P) 
Copeland(P) 
Ogilvy(P) 
te Heuheu(P) 
Alexander(P) 
Eckhoff(P) 
Paraone(P) 
Tisch (P) 
Ardern(P) 
English(P) 
Perry(P) 
Turia(P) 
Baldock(P) 
Field   
Peters J (P) 
Turner   
Brash(P) 
Franks   
Peters W (P) 
Wang(P) 
Brown (P) 
Goudie(P) 
Power(P) 
Woolerton(P) 
Brownlee(P) 
Gudgeon(P) 
Prebble(P) 
Worth(P) 
Carter D (P) 
Heatley(P) 
Ryall(P) 
Carter J (P) 
Hutchison(P) 
Smith L (P) 
Catchpole (P) 
Jones (P) 
Smith M (P) 
Collins(P) 
McNair(P) 
Smith N (P) 
Teller: 
Connell(P) 
Newman(P) 
Stewart(P) 
Scott   
Bill read a third time. 
A personal vote was called for on the question  
That the Real Estate Agents Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 76 
Anderton(P) 
Duynhoven (P) 
Locke  (P) 
Samuels(P) 
Barker(P) 
Dyson(P) 
Mackey J (P) 
Shirley(P) 
Barnett  (P) 
Ewen-Street   
Mackey M(P) 
Simich(P) 
Benson-Pope(P) 
Fairbrother(P) 
Maharey(P) 
Sowry(P) 
Beyer  (P) 
Fitzsimons(P) 
Mahuta(P) 
Sutton(P) 
Bradford(P) 
Gallagher(P) 
Mallard(P) 
Swain(P) 
Burton(P) 
Goff(P) 
Mapp(P) 
Tamihere(P) 
Carter C (P) 
Gosche(P) 
Mark(P) 
Tanczos(P) 
Chadwick(P) 
Hartley(P) 
McCully(P) 
Tizard(P)  
Choudhary(P) 
Hawkins(P) 
O'Connor(P) 
Turei(P) 
Clark(P) 
Hereora(P) 
Okeroa(P) 
Ward(P) 
Coddington(P) 
Hide(P) 
Parker(P) 
Williamson(P) 
Cosgrove(P) 
Hobbs   
Peck(P) 
Wilson(P) 
Cullen(P) 
Hodgson(P) 
Pettis (P) 
Wong(P) 
Cunliffe(P) 
Horomia(P) 
Pillay(P) 
Yates   
Dalziel(P) 
Hunt(P) 
Rich(P) 
Donald(P) 
Kedgley(P) 
Ririnui(P) 
Donnelly   
Key(P) 
Robertson(P) 
Duncan(P) 
King(P) 
Robson(P) 
Teller: 
Dunne(P) 
Laban(P) 
Roy(P) 
Hughes   
Noes 44 
Adams(P)  
Copeland(P) 
Ogilvy(P) 
te Heuheu(P) 
Alexander(P) 
Eckhoff(P) 
Paraone(P) 
Tisch(P) 
Ardern(P) 
English(P) 
Perry(P) 
Turia(P) 
Baldock(P) 
Field   
Peters J (P) 
Turner   
Brash(P) 
Franks   
Peters W (P) 
Wang(P) 
Brown (P) 
Goudie(P) 
Power 
Woolerton(P) 
Brownlee(P) 
Gudgeon(P) 
Prebble(P) 
Worth 
Carter D (P) 
Heatley(P) 
Ryall(P) 
Carter J (P) 
Hutchison(P) 
Smith L (P) 
Catchpole(P) 
Jones(P)  
Smith M (P) 
Collins(P) 
McNair(P) 
Smith N (P) 
Teller: 
Connell(P) 
Newman(P) 
Stewart(P) 
Scott   
Bill read a third time. 
A personal vote was called for on the question  
That the Social Security Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 72 
Anderton(P) 
Duynhoven(P) 
Locke  (P) 
Samuels(P) 
Barker(P) 
Dyson(P) 
Mackey J (P) 
Simich(P) 
Barnett(P)  
Ewen-Street 
Mackey M(P) 
Sowry(P) 
Benson-Pope(P) 
Fairbrother (P) 
Maharey(P) 
Sutton(P) 
Beyer  (P) 
Fitzsimons(P) 
Mahuta(P) 
Swain(P) 
Bradford(P) 
Gallagher(P) 
Mallard(P) 
Tamihere(P) 
Burton(P) 
Goff (P) 
Mapp(P) 
Tanczos(P) 
Carter C (P) 
Gosche(P) 
Mark(P) 
Tizard(P) 
Chadwick(P) 
Hartley(P) 
McCully(P) 
Turei(P) 
Choudhary(P) 
Hawkins(P) 
O'Connor(P) 
Ward(P) 
Clark(P) 
Hereora(P) 
Okeroa(P) 
Williamson (P) 
Cosgrove(P) 
Hobbs 
Parker(P) 
Wilson(P) 
Cullen(P) 
Hodgson(P) 
Peck(P) 
Wong(P) 
Cunliffe(P) 
Horomia(P) 
Pettis(P) 
Yates 
Dalziel(P) 
Hunt(P) 
Pillay (P) 
Donald(P) 
Kedgley(P) 
Rich(P) 
Donnelly 
Key(P) 
Ririnui(P) 
Duncan(P) 
King 
Robertson(P) 
Teller: 
Dunne(P) 
Laban(P) 
Robson (P) 
Hughes   
Noes 48 
Adams(P)  
Copeland(P) 
Ogilvy(P) 
Smith N (P) 
Alexander(P) 
Eckhoff(P) 
Paraone(P) 
Stewart(P) 
Ardern(P) 
English(P) 
Perry(P) 
te Heuheu(P) 
Baldock(P) 
Field 
Peters J (P) 
Turia 
Brash(P) 
Franks   
Peters W (P) 
Turner 
Brown (P) 
Goudie(P) 
Power 
Wang(P) 
Brownlee (P) 
Gudgeon(P) 
Prebble(P) 
Woolerton(P) 
Carter D (P) 
Heatley(P) 
Roy(P) 
Worth(P) 
Carter J (P) 
Hide(P) 
Ryall(P) 
Catchpole(P)  
Hutchison(P) 
Scott(P) 
Coddington(P) 
Jones(P)  
Shirley(P) 
Collins(P) 
McNair(P) 
Smith L (P) 
Teller: 
Connell(P) 
Newman(P) 
Smith M 
Tisch   
Bill read a third time. 
A personal vote was called for on the question  
That the Tax Administration Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 77 
Anderton(P) 
Duynhoven(P)  
Laban(P) 
Roy(P) 
Barker(P) 
Dyson(P) 
Locke(P)  
Samuels(P) 
Barnett  (P) 
Ewen-Street 
Mackey J (P) 
Shirley(P) 
Benson-Pope(P) 
Fairbrother(P) 
Mackey M(P) 
Simich(P) 
Beyer  (P) 
Fitzsimons(P) 
Maharey(P) 
Sowry(P) 
Bradford(P) 
Franks 
Mahuta(P) 
Sutton(P) 
Burton(P) 
Gallagher(P) 
Mallard(P) 
Swain(P) 
Carter C (P) 
Goff(P) 
Mapp(P) 
Tamihere(P) 
Chadwick(P) 
Gosche(P) 
Mark(P) 
Tanczos(P) 
Choudhary(P) 
Hartley(P) 
McCully(P) 
Tizard(P) 
Clark(P) 
Hawkins(P) 
O'Connor(P) 
Turei(P) 
Coddington(P) 
Hereora(P) 
Okeroa  (P) 
Ward(P) 
Cosgrove(P) 
Hide(P) 
Parker(P) 
Williamson(P) 
Cullen(P) 
Hobbs 
Peck(P) 
Wilson(P) 
Cunliffe(P) 
Hodgson(P) 
Pettis(P) 
Wong(P) 
Dalziel 
Horomia(P) 
Pillay(P) 
Yates   
Donald (P) 
Hunt(P) 
Rich(P) 
Donnelly 
Kedgley (P) 
Ririnui(P) 
Duncan(P) 
Key(P) 
Robertson(P) 
Teller: 
Dunne(P) 
King 
Robson(P) 
Hughes 
Noes 43 
Adams  (P) 
Copeland(P) 
Paraone(P) 
te Heuheu(P) 
Alexander(P) 
Eckhoff(P) 
Perry(P) 
Turia(P) 
Ardern(P) 
English(P) 
Peters J (P) 
Turner   
Baldock(P) 
Field 
Peters W (P) 
Wang(P) 
Brash(P) 
Goudie(P) 
Power 
Woolerton(P) 
Brown (P) 
Gudgeon(P) 
Prebble(P) 
Worth(P) 
Brownlee(P) 
Heatley(P) 
Ryall(P) 
Carter D (P) 
Hutchison(P) 
Scott(P) 
Carter J (P) 
Jones  (P) 
Smith L (P) 
Catchpole  (P) 
McNair(P) 
Smith M (P) 
Collins(P) 
Newman(P) 
Smith N (P) 
Teller: 
Connell(P) 
Ogilvy(P) 
Stewart(P) 
Tisch   
Bill read a third time. 
A personal vote was called for on the question  
That the Trustee Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 76 
Anderton(P) 
Duynhoven  (P) 
Locke   
Samuels(P) 
Barker(P) 
Dyson(P) 
Mackey J (P) 
Shirley(P) 
Barnett(P) 
Ewen-Street 
Mackey M 
Simich(P) 
Benson-Pope(P) 
Fairbrother(P) 
Maharey(P) 
Sowry(P) 
Beyer(P) 
Fitzsimons(P) 
Mahuta(P) 
Sutton(P) 
Bradford(P) 
Gallagher(P) 
Mallard(P) 
Swain(P) 
Burton(P) 
Goff(P) 
Mapp(P) 
Tamihere(P) 
Carter C (P) 
Gosche(P) 
Mark(P) 
Tanczos(P) 
Chadwick(P) 
Hartley(P) 
McCully(P) 
Tizard   
Choudhary(P) 
Hawkins(P) 
O'Connor(P) 
Turei(P) 
Clark(P) 
Hereora(P) 
Okeroa(P) 
Ward(P) 
Coddington(P) 
Hide(P) 
Parker(P) 
Williamson(P) 
Cosgrove(P) 
Hobbs   
Peck(P) 
Wilson(P) 
Cullen(P) 
Hodgson(P) 
Pettis (P) 
Wong(P) 
Cunliffe(P) 
Horomia(P) 
Pillay(P) 
Yates (P) 
Dalziel 
Hunt(P) 
Rich(P) 
Donald(P) 
Kedgley(P) 
Ririnui(P) 
Donnelly 
Key(P) 
Robertson(P) 
Duncan(P) 
King(P) 
Robson(P) 
Teller: 
Dunne(P) 
Laban(P) 
Roy(P) 
Hughes 
Noes 44 
Adams (P) 
Copeland(P) 
Ogilvy(P) 
Stewart(P) 
Alexander(P) 
Eckhoff(P) 
Paraone(P) 
te Heuheu(P) 
Ardern(P) 
English(P) 
Perry(P) 
Turia(P) 
Baldock(P) 
Field(P) 
Peters J (P) 
Turner   
Brash(P) 
Franks   
Peters W (P) 
Wang(P) 
Brown (P) 
Goudie   
Power   
Woolerton(P) 
Brownlee(P) 
Gudgeon(P) 
Prebble(P) 
Worth(P) 
Carter D (P) 
Heatley(P) 
Ryall(P) 
Carter J (P) 
Hutchison(P) 
Scott(P) 
Catchpole (P) 
Jones (P) 
Smith L (P) 
Collins(P) 
McNair(P) 
Smith M (P) 
Teller: 
Connell   
Newman(P) 
Smith N (P) 
Tisch   
Bill read a third time. 
A personal vote was called for on the question  
That the War Pensions Amendment Bill (No 3) be now read a third time. 
Ayes 76 
Anderton(P) 
Duynhoven (P) 
Locke (P) 
Samuels(P) 
Barker(P) 
Dyson(P) 
Mackey J (P) 
Shirley(P) 
Barnett (P) 
Ewen-Street   
Mackey M (P) 
Simich(P) 
Benson-Pope(P) 
Fairbrother(P) 
Maharey(P) 
Sowry(P) 
Beyer (P) 
Fitzsimons(P) 
Mahuta(P) 
Sutton(P) 
Bradford(P) 
Gallagher(P) 
Mallard(P) 
Swain(P) 
Burton(P) 
Goff(P) 
Mapp(P) 
Tamihere(P) 
Carter C (P) 
Gosche(P) 
Mark(P) 
Tanczos(P) 
Chadwick(P) 
Hartley(P) 
McCully(P) 
Tizard   
Choudhary(P) 
Hawkins(P) 
O'Connor(P) 
Turei(P) 
Clark(P) 
Hereora(P) 
Okeroa(P) 
Ward   
Coddington(P) 
Hide   
Parker(P) 
Williamson(P) 
Cosgrove(P) 
Hobbs   
Peck(P) 
Wilson(P) 
Cullen(P) 
Hodgson(P) 
Pettis (P) 
Wong(P) 
Cunliffe(P) 
Horomia(P) 
Pillay(P) 
Yates   
Dalziel   
Hunt(P) 
Rich(P) 
Donald(P) 
Kedgley(P) 
Ririnui(P) 
Donnelly   
Key(P) 
Robertson(P) 
Duncan(P) 
King   
Robson(P) 
Teller: 
Dunne(P) 
Laban(P) 
Roy(P) 
Hughes   
Noes 44 
Adams (P) 
Copeland(P) 
Ogilvy(P) 
Stewart(P) 
Alexander   
Eckhoff(P) 
Paraone   
te Heuheu(P) 
Ardern(P) 
English(P) 
Perry(P) 
Turia(P) 
Baldock(P) 
Field   
Peters J (P) 
Turner   
Brash(P) 
Franks   
Peters W (P) 
Wang(P) 
Brown (P) 
Goudie(P) 
Power(P) 
Woolerton(P) 
Brownlee(P) 
Gudgeon(P) 
Prebble(P) 
Worth(P) 
Carter D (P) 
Heatley(P) 
Ryall(P) 
Carter J (P) 
Hutchison(P) 
Scott(P) 
Catchpole (P) 
Jones (P) 
Smith L (P) 
Collins(P) 
McNair(P) 
Smith M (P) 
Teller: 
Connell   
Newman(P) 
Smith N (P) 
Tisch   
Bill read a third time. 
A personal vote was called for on the question  
That the Wills Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 76 
Anderton(P) 
Duynhoven (P) 
Locke (P) 
Samuels(P) 
Barker(P) 
Dyson(P) 
Mackey J (P) 
Shirley(P) 
Barnett (P) 
Ewen-Street(P) 
Mackey M (P) 
Simich(P) 
Benson-Pope(P) 
Fairbrother(P) 
Maharey(P) 
Sowry(P) 
Beyer (P) 
Fitzsimons(P) 
Mahuta(P) 
Sutton(P) 
Bradford(P) 
Gallagher(P) 
Mallard(P) 
Swain(P) 
Burton(P) 
Goff(P) 
Mapp(P) 
Tamihere(P) 
Carter C (P) 
Gosche(P) 
Mark(P) 
Tanczos(P) 
Chadwick(P) 
Hartley(P) 
McCully(P) 
Tizard   
Choudhary(P) 
Hawkins(P) 
O'Connor(P) 
Turei(P) 
Clark(P) 
Hereora(P) 
Okeroa(P) 
Ward   
Coddington(P) 
Hide(P) 
Parker(P) 
Williamson(P) 
Cosgrove(P) 
Hobbs   
Peck(P) 
Wilson(P) 
Cullen(P) 
Hodgson(P) 
Pettis (P) 
Wong(P) 
Cunliffe   
Horomia(P) 
Pillay(P) 
Yates   
Dalziel   
Hunt(P) 
Rich(P) 
Donald(P) 
Kedgley(P) 
Ririnui(P) 
Donnelly   
Key(P) 
Robertson(P) 
Duncan(P) 
King(P) 
Robson(P) 
Teller: 
Dunne(P) 
Laban(P) 
Roy(P) 
Hughes   
Noes 44 
Adams (P) 
Copeland(P) 
Ogilvy(P) 
Stewart(P) 
Alexander   
Eckhoff(P) 
Paraone   
te Heuheu  
Ardern(P) 
English(P) 
Perry(P) 
Turia(P) 
Baldock(P) 
Field   
Peters J (P) 
Turner(P) 
Brash(P) 
Franks   
Peters W (P) 
Wang(P) 
Brown (P) 
Goudie(P) 
Power(P) 
Woolerton(P) 
Brownlee(P) 
Gudgeon(P) 
Prebble(P) 
Worth(P) 
Carter D  
Heatley(P) 
Ryall(P) 
Carter J (P) 
Hutchison(P) 
Scott(P) 
Catchpole (P) 
Jones (P) 
Smith L (P) 
Collins(P) 
McNair(P) 
Smith M (P) 
Teller: 
Connell   
Newman(P) 
Smith N (P) 
Tisch   
Bill read a third time. 
Animal Products Amendment Bill (No 2) 
Animal Products (Ancillary and Transitional Provisions) Amendment Bill (No 2) 
Third Readings 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister for Food Safety) 
: 
 I move  
That the Animal Products Amendment Bill (No 2) and the Animal Products (Ancillary and Transitional Provisions) Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a third time 
. This legislation provides for the regulation of the dairy industry under the Animal Products Act and repeals the Dairy Industry Act. The dairy industry is New Zealand’s largest industry with exports worth more than $508 billion to the New Zealand economy. There are over 14000 dairy farmer suppliers with 188 registered dairy factories 285 registered stores and transporters and 473 registered dairy premises. There is widespread industry support for this legislation and there has been unanimous support in this House. 
The legislation will provide for a seamless transition between the Dairy Industry Act and the Animal Products Act. It will deem all product safety programmes under the Dairy Industry Act to be risk management programmes under the Animal Products Act from 1 June 2005 which is the start of the next dairy season. On those grounds there will be little change for operators in their day-to-day business functions which means that there will be minimal compliance costs associated with the legislation. For the majority of the industry the technical requirements will initially remain the same. 
The dairy industry keenly awaits this legislation and is looking forward to receiving the benefits of operating under a new legislative framework that is consistent with the enabling style used in modern risk-based legislation. I thank the members of the Primary Production Committee for the work they did on reporting the legislation back to the House without amendment. There was little substance in the debate in the Committee of the whole House. Perhaps there was a little bit of point-scoring from Brian Connell as he made a speech against the New Zealand Food Safety Authority but I suspect that it was more a filler for his 5 minutes than a plan to scrap the authority should National ever become the Government. 
Hon David Carter 
: Who wrote this? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I say to Mr Carter that I wrote that all by myself. I thought we would have a little bit of passion in the debate because we did not get much in the Committee stage. 
I conclude by saying that this is long-awaited legislation. Dairy farmers will be very happy tonight to know that we have finally passed this legislation which enables them to start the next dairy season on 1 June 2005 with this legislation in place. I commend this legislation to the House for its third reading. 
Hon DAVID CARTER (National) 
: 
 Can I first of all say in response to the Minister that due to the debate that preceded this very important legislation I suspect that 14000 dairy farmers—those extremely hard-working New Zealand dairy farmers—have turned out the lights because by about 4 o’clock or 5 o’clock tomorrow morning they will be up before that member starts her day to make sure that they are out there doing their bit to create wealth for all of New Zealand. I applaud those 14000 dairy farmers for what they have done for our economy over the last 5 years. It is a credit to them and it is a shame that the Government has not taken the opportunity to recognise them and credit them for their role. 
With the passing of this legislation it is important for the House to realise that there were two reasons given at the time that the previous National Government passed that excellent legislation the Animal Products Act of 1999. As we revamped the legislation pertaining to all animal products we specifically excluded the dairy industry for two reasons. The first reason given to us at the time by officialdom was the complexity of dairy products. The second reason given was the huge amount of change that was occurring in the dairy industry at that time due to producer board deregulation. 
Let me comment on the first reason. It is interesting that while officials and the industry spoke about the depth of complexity around bringing dairy products and the dairy industry into this legislation once everybody has put their minds to it in the clear light of day it seems to me that we have overcome the complexities and I acknowledge the work done by the select committee as it tidied up one or two things through that process. 
The second reason I think was quite valid. We have to go back to 1997 and 1998 when the Hon John Luxton an eminent former member and agriculture Minister staked his political career on the reform of producer boards and particularly the reform of the dairy industry. I had the pleasure yesterday with the member for Piako Lindsay Tisch to be in his electorate and to visit Open Country Cheese which is an operation located 10 kilometres north of Matamata. Many members of this House will know that the former Deputy Prime Minister the Hon Wyatt Creech— 
Darren Hughes 
: The right honourable! 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: It is nice to still have a “right honourable” after that member voted the Privy Council away; they are fast becoming an endangered species those “right honourables”! But I want to congratulate the Rt Hon Wyatt Creech and the Hon John Luxton on what they and what many other investors have done there at Open Country Cheese. However I point out that that has happened only because the legislation passed by this House has allowed the dairy industry to finally deregulate with the formation of Fonterra and that has to date been a very successful move for the 14000 dairy farmers. 
We then attended a meeting after visiting Open Country Cheese and one of the dairy farmers there made a comment such as: “Well I think the only good legislation that the socialists have passed is the Dairy Industry Restructuring Act of 2001.” I certainly took the opportunity to correct that farmer. While the law might finally have been passed under the Labour Government elected at the end of 1999 no credit at all can go to the Labour Government and particularly not to Jim Sutton as Minister of Agriculture for shepherding that legislation through the House. It was entirely the superb work of the previous Government which took the initiative to allow this industry—this all-important industry—to play its role in the New Zealand economy. 
Brian Connell 
: What do Federated Farmers think of this? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: Mr Connell interjects to ask me what Federated Farmers think of that move. They are certainly very supportive of the dairy industry and of the deregulation that has occurred. After I corrected that one hapless member within my audience they collectively congratulated the previous National Government on its superb work in deregulating industry boards. But I have a quiz for that member Brian Connell: what do five Federated Farmers provincial branches—namely Auckland Bay of Plenty West Coast Nelson and Marlborough—all have in common? 
Brian Connell 
: They want the Minister of Agriculture to resign. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: The member is absolutely right. Those five provincial branches of Federated Farmers have taken the unprecedented move of calling for the resignation of the Minister of Agriculture. 
 As I said in a radio interview about 30 minutes ago even though agriculture went through the turmoil of the 1980s at no time did the industry feel so aggrieved that it voted a vote of no confidence as they are doing with the current Minister of Agriculture the Hon Jim Sutton. What we are seeing is a turning point and why the Minister Annette King can come into this House and crow about a $5 billion industry and 14000 dairy farmers working hard morning and night to create that wealth. Those farmers are aggrieved. They are angry. They are as angry as we have ever seen the farming community in this country and the principal reason they are grumpy is the stupid legislation around the issue of public access. 
I say to members opposite that that will be the issue that this Government will have to justify during the election campaign. That is the reason so many farmers are voting no confidence in the Minister of Agriculture and that is the reason the farmers who should be happy with the current level of dairy payout are not happy at all. They are fed up with this Government attacking agriculture and not appreciating the role that it plays. 
I want to now move to a very important aspect of this legislation—that is the issue of trade facilitation. This legislation will help to facilitate the entry of New Zealand dairy products into our overseas markets and that is to be applauded. But I say to this House that we can sit here and pass any amount of legislation that facilitates the entry of our dairy products into overseas markets but it will not help one iota unless the Government will generally focus on the issues of trade development. 
I refer of course to the way we have allowed the Australians to get a march on us by developing a free-trade agreement with America whereas we are nowhere on the agenda for a free-trade agreement with the United States of America until Helen Clark is prepared to apologise for some of the comments she made earlier against President Bush and his administration. 
Finally I want to talk briefly about our ability to export dairy products to any country in the world. What then becomes critical about our ability to profitably export is the costs of production in this country. Until the election of a Labour Government in 2002 New Zealand was recognised as the cheapest place in the world to produce dairy products. I was horrified but not surprised to learn last week of the report of AgResearch that states that New Zealand is not now the cheapest place in the world to produce dairy products—Argentina and Chile are the cheapest. However more worrying is that Australia our biggest competitor in the international market is now a cheaper place to operate a dairy farm and produce dairy products than New Zealand. 
That is principally because this Government has slagged and slogged the dairy industry and all of agriculture with somewhere around 30 new taxes since 1999. The industry cannot continue to prosper if a Government is totally unsympathetic to the issue of profitability. The Government must take note of these additional taxes it is imposing on this industry because they threaten the very buoyancy of the New Zealand economy. 
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. 
R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First) 
: 
 That speech was from the well-known dairy farmer from west Auckland David Cunliffe. But he has other attributes so we will not go on very much about that. These bills about animal products are technical legislation and as previous speakers have mentioned the legislation is intended to enhance our entry into foreign markets. It is certainly true that the dairy industry is a $5 billion export industry. It is certainly true that there are 14000 dairy farmers in this country who produce I might add 25 percent of this country’s exports—exports upon which we rely in order to sustain a reasonably high standard of living. 
When the Hon David Carter was talking about that he made much about the dairy industry deregulation promulgated by the Hon John Luxton and pushed through a special committee of this House while the National Party was in Government. But I would not make a big issue about having pushed through deregulation and very shortly thereafter going off to take advantage of that deregulation by building one’s own cheese factory with another ministerial colleague called Wyatt Creech. There is nothing illegal about that and there is nothing particularly wrong about that but it is just not something I would rave on about if I were the Hon David Carter. The milk is supplied to Open Country Cheese by Fonterra which is forced by legislation to supply milk to the company—at an agreed price I must add. 
That is certainly a wee way yet from the pure free market that the Hon David Carter would have us believe exists in the dairy industry. So I tell members I do not think it is right that the National members rave on about that because it is neither a completely free market nor is it something to be proud of to have shoved through legislation in this House and then to have gone out into the business world to take advantage of it. I do not think anyone should skite about that. 
It is also the case that five branches of Federated Farmers have passed a vote of no confidence in the Minister of Agriculture. I have previously warned Federated Farmers against tying themselves up too closely with political parties. In this case—I do not know whether people are aware of this but if they are not I will make them—the ACT party through its very energetic member Gerry Eckhoff has been making sure that those votes of no confidence in the Minister are passed by going around the country and by going on about the so-called right-to-roam legislation. That legislation as I understand it is not going to happen but we all know that legislation is planned to give access to rivers and streams. We will talk about that in the fullness of time. New Zealand First will be happy to talk about it and I am personally happy to give my views on it at the appropriate time. 
It is interesting that people are saying that that issue will be an election issue. It will not be—absolutely not—and it will not even register on the Richter scale at the election. I think quite frankly that the two parties that are going on and on about it are having Federated Farmers on. When the lady from Federated Farmers comes to see me I will ask her whether Federated Farmers are now getting into the political business and joining up with parties or whether they are going to do what my father and his friends and colleagues of those days did—and what they worked their buts off for—which was to represent farmers fairly in this House amongst all the political parties without fear or favour and no matter who is governing the country at any point in time. If Federated Farmers are not going to do that they will pass into the annals of irrelevancy. I will give them that warning right now because that is what I intend to tell their representative. 
It is a sad day when Federated Farmers go down that track and it is a sad day when they are led astray by one party in particular in this House which has misjudged the situation and thought that legislation would be in Parliament by now. It is not in the House and it will not be here before the election. A person does not have to be a rocket scientist to work that out but that party’s members have gone around huffing and puffing to no end use and they have to use my colloquialism tucked up Federated Farmers. I am proud to say that when my father was at the top of that organisation he would not have allowed that to happen and he will be turning in his grave that such an organisation has gone down that path. New Zealand First will not support all that sort of right-to-roam legislation but neither will it go down the path of tucking up an industrial grouping with such an honourable history as Federated Farmers and in fact the farmers themselves. 
We support this animal products legislation. We look forward to its assisting dairy farmers across the country and most of all look forward to its assisting our access into markets—unfriendly markets I might add—on the other side of the world. 
GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT) 
: 
 In case any people listening were not aware who the previous speaker was let me inform them that it was Doug Woolerton who was supported by the blowfish—Doug Woolerton and the “Blowfish Party”. 
While we are talking about the animal products bills let me assure that member and everybody else that the demand that has come over my desk for me to get back on the bus go right throughout New Zealand and talk about the issues affecting farmers has been immense. In a few short days I will be back talking to the farming community about access which affects the farming community; about the “fart tax”—I suppose members will claim that that was just a Federated Farmers beat-up on the farmers again—or getting political about the 5c a litre fuel tax. Farmers are very keen to know why they are being penalised when they put fuel in vehicles that they use on their own farm tracks. That 5c a litre tax will be used to fix the roads of Auckland and farmers are not happy about paying it. 
But let me say to Mr Woolerton that the job of Federated Farmers is to represent their farming communities in the way they see fit just as the trade union movement represents its members as it sees fit. The trade union movement is affiliated almost totally to the Labour Government yet Mr Woolerton says that Federated Farmers cannot align themselves with the centre-right—yeah right! 
I would like to get back to the subject of the dairy industry and the wider land-based industry and to make this observation: it is because this Government has ignored land-based industry in this country that it has been so successful. Let us think about that for a moment. It is because the Government has fundamentally ignored everything to do with land-based industry that it has been so successful. I suggest that the Government should also ignore education health welfare and all of those issues because they are outstanding failures. Yet when we look at the dairy industry we see outstanding success. Why? Why does this Government not run the food industry for example? That surely must be the most important industry in this country. If we do not eat we die. So why does the Government not take it over? The answer is obvious: we would all end up 100 metres back in the queue on a cold winter’s morning trying to get some bread. That is why we will not have Governments involved. 
I say again that I am absolutely proud of the industry that I stand in this House and represent—the farming industry. It has achieved outstanding success. Despite high-handed top-down regulation being imposed on the industry by this Government it has managed somehow to circumvent that. We had a little bit of good fortune I guess with exchange rates at one stage down to 39c but now they are up to 75c and the industry is still holding its own because of its expertise and the high demand for the quality products of this industry and of the wider land-based industry in this country. 
As an ACT party MP I am not at all keen on regulation and rules but I do accept that in the dairy industry and the food industry there has to be regulation surrounding the quality of food. But one of the great ironies about this whole thing is that the regulations surrounding the use of antibiotics and so on for animals are far more stringent than the regulations for their use by human beings. Why? Why do we virtually control the use of something like Amoxil for animals but do not restrict its use by human beings? We can swallow the stuff by the gallon if we wish to. It seems totally perverse that we have these high-handed restrictions on the farming industry yet human beings can absorb everything that is thrown at them. 
I also want to pay tribute to Mr Owen Jennings who of course would be well known to everybody in this House. We have heard about deregulation. Well it was Owen Jennings and the ACT party who back in 1996 drove this issue when every other party in this House said: “Oh no don’t touch it. Let the farming community decide.” I think we owe a huge debt of gratitude to men like Owen Jennings who had the courage to stand against the popular tide of conservatism and regulation at that time. His name shines in lights quite frankly when we talk about the success of the dairy industry and the success of deregulation of which New Zealand is rightly so very proud today. I think we owe a real debt of gratitude to Owen Jennings and like-minded people who way back—almost 10 years ago now—demanded the freedom for this industry to expand and excel which it most surely has done. 
There is a way to go yet especially for the dairy industry. I am delighted to see that a private dairy company Open Country Cheese has started up. It opened for public subscription. Shares were floated and they were taken within a matter of minutes I think. That shows that the public in this country has huge confidence in my old flatmate Wyatt Creech and the others who have started up this company. They saw the opportunity and despite what Mr Woolerton says I am told that they will have secured private or non-Fonterra suppliers before very much longer. I cannot guarantee it but it is something that I think will happen. Open Country Cheese recognises that there is a need for outside capital to come into this industry rather than farmers constantly being asked to accept a smaller payout for their product. They can expand their own industry without having to tie up all their capital within the dairy industry—without their having all their eggs in that one particular basket so to speak. 
 So we have a lot to be very very proud of in the dairy industry. This animal products legislation goes along the way of ensuring that our products are widely known and respected and command premium prices throughout the world. Alongside my colleagues I stand delighted to support this bill. I make this final point: it seems extraordinary that virtually every bill that goes through the Primary Production Committee is non-controversial and gets cross-party support. That is because by and large it is common sense that the legislation is needed and there is little or no Government involvement. That is the secret to success in this country—get the Government out of business. 
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I stand on behalf of United Future to speak to the third reading of this legislation. As a dairy farmer’s daughter I think my dear dad would not be turning in his grave but would be rather chuffed that this industry is getting the makeover that it so richly deserves. 
The objectives are quite clearly defined. The legislation sets in place a system that is less coercive and more outcome focused. The move to manage the risks to humans and to animal health from the consumption and use of dairy products and to further facilitate the entry of New Zealand dairy products into the overseas markets through improved quality assurances cannot in all reality be rationally opposed. It is very pleasing to hear the support in the House this evening for the third readings. These objectives will serve the industry and the country well both now and into the future. 
It was also pleasing to note that there were efforts to consult the industry members about the underlying issues that the legislation seeks to address. As with any proposed legislation that affects the livelihood of stakeholders both large and small participation in the process and hopefully buy-in brings integrity to legislation and adds value to its intentions. 
Consultation on this proposal has included discussion papers and stakeholder submissions and it has been broad and extremely useful. The regulatory model used for the legislation will afford the industry more responsibility for producing safe food and the necessary flexibility to achieve desired outcomes. The functionality of the model is commendable and will add value to industry practice and procedure and will help to ensure future-proofing of the industry allowing for its ongoing development for the benefit of all New Zealanders. Once again United Future supports the third readings of the bills. 
BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) 
: 
 I want to take a relatively short call on this legislation because I have just two or three points to make. The first is that although the National Party is supporting this legislation and I know that the dairy industry is supporting this we are doing it somewhat through gritted teeth. The reason we have been told that this is the sort of legislation that the dairy industry wants is that it will facilitate trade into European markets. As someone who has been involved in the industry over a number of years I have to say that I do not necessarily buy that. We should understand and members of the dairy industry do understand that the customers in the European markets appreciate cheap quality goods just like everyone else. Members of the industry are concerned that we will create a bureaucracy that is bloated with red tape which will affect that competitiveness somewhat. I am sick and tired of a Government that dances to the tune of European markets day in and day out without giving due recognition to the dairy industry and the sterling work that that industry has done over the last 20 years. 
Opposition Member 
: Fourteen thousand hard-working dairy farmers. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: The 14000 hard-working dairy farmers in this country should get more support and recognition than they do from this Government. The other point I want to make—and this really raises the hackles on the back of my neck—relates to the Food Safety Authority. Here is an organisation that has a reputation for being full of zealots. It is hard to deal with—it is pretty much “Do it our way or no way.”—and I say that that is not an acceptable way to conduct business across this country. Industry after industry has felt the torch of this authority and they find it very difficult and unreasonable to deal with. What it is promoting is that this industry must be self-regulating. It must have risk management programmes in place we have been told. Well hello! Wake up and smell the roses is what I say to the Food Safety Authority because here is an industry that has been regulating itself for a long time and has been doing it to exacting standards. It should get some credit for that. 
My final advice to the Government is this: if it is not broke then do not try to fix it. What the dairy industry is most alarmed about—when I talk to individual members and to the industry as a whole—is that this will end up in a bureaucratic nightmare as this Government its consultants and its food safety henchmen drive around the country and put in place bloated regulation after regulation which is simply not necessary. 
LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) 
: 
 It is always interesting to hear Government members talk about how great the dairy industry is and how great agriculture is but it was not so many years ago that David Lange said that agriculture was a sunset industry. 
Lianne Dalziel 
: 1985. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: In 1985 David Lange said that agriculture was a sunset industry. It is actually agriculture that has led the charge in the growth of New Zealand. The prosperity of New Zealand has been very much dependent on what is happening in the agricultural sector. With deregulation we have seen—as my colleague the Hon David Carter said—the creation of enterprises like Open Country Cheese which David Carter and myself visited yesterday. We have seen the kind of entrepreneurial spirit that has gone into that initiative. It is a $25 million investment which was oversubscribed—that is how well the investors thought of this operation—and which is now within a short time moving into whey production. To manage the risk of that operation the company is moving into whey and the markets associated with it. 
I want to share a couple of comments with the House about Open Country Cheese. For the benefit of the member from New Zealand First Doug Woolerton who does come from the agricultural sector—as he has mentioned his father was very much involved in the dairy industry—I say that although Fonterra has to supply so many litres of milk to that company under the Dairy Industry Restructuring Act individual farmers have taken it upon themselves to move straight out of supplying Fonterra— 
Hon David Carter 
: They are queuing up. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: They are queuing up as my colleague says. We had yesterday the situation where a Tatua Cooperative Dairy Co. supplier—and everyone knows what a success Tatua is—has taken his supply away from Tatua to supply exclusively Open Country Cheese. Now as my colleague says there are farmers lining up to supply this company next year. The member says the company is taking money from Fonterra because of the Dairy Industry Restructuring Act but I tell him that it is not dependent on that because it is making it out there in the marketplace. It has established a reputation. 
Lianne Dalziel 
: What’s the name of the company? 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: It is called the Open Country Cheese Co. 
Opposition Member 
: That member should know about that. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: The member should know about it. Here we have a company with entrepreneurial spirit and get-up-and-go. These people—the dairy farmers of the country—are making it worthwhile. They are the wealth creators. 
Brian Connell 
: They do not get handouts. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: No they did not need any handouts from Mr Anderton. They are the wealth creators of New Zealand. National supports their initiatives. We support their entrepreneurial spirit—not only the dairy farmers but also those companies that are making a go of it at the coalface such as Open Country Cheese. And there will be other companies that do that. National is happy to support that. As we move to adding value the point needs to be made—it has been made before but I reiterate it—that New Zealand is no longer the country producing the cheapest dairy products. We have been overtaken now by the Argentine and Chile. Those countries’ costs of production are lower than ours. We have to be footing it in the marketplace we have to be adding value to our products and that is what this sort of company is doing. 
It is no credit to Labour I can tell members; it is no credit to what this Government has been doing. It happened during National’s time when people with foresight such as John Luxton and Wyatt Creech were prepared to stand up and be counted and Wyatt Creech has led the charge with this new cheese company. 
National is supporting this legislation and we are supporting the dairy farmers and the dairy industry of New Zealand. 
Bills read a third time. 
The House adjourned at 9.57 p.m.