edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Eckhoff Gerrard: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4) — In Committee 
Eckhoff Gerrard: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4) — In Committee 
[Volume:619;Page:14550] 
GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT) 
: 
 I am not sure whether it was Shakespeare who once asked: “But what is in a name?”. I think when it comes to the scampi bill quite a lot is in a name. A member of the public listening to this debate might tune in and say: “Oh this is the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4)—what an innocuous title.” Anybody listening would think that the subject has to be the most boring ever and switch off. In reality as the Hon David Carter mentioned this bill is about one of the biggest commercial—how can I rephrase that? I cannot recall a time when an allocation of any product anywhere has caused so much controversy. It has taken over a year of inquiry—indeed there have been two inquiries—to actually come up with this final bill that we have in front of us the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4). 
 In fact the bill should be named the “Scampi Bill” as Mr Ian Ewen-Street and Mr David Carter have quite rightly observed because everybody in this country who has any interest in the fishing industry knows this infamous No. 4 bill as the “Scampi Bill”. It is entirely appropriate to give it a name that describes it exactly. It is important that the title should reflect accurately what this bill is really about. The bill is about huge controversy. There has been enormous controversy. It is about allegations of incompetence. It is all about allegations of corruption. It is about ineptitude. It is about all of those things yet nothing in the title actually or accurately reflects exactly what this bill contains. 
I hope that the Minister in the chair the Hon David Benson-Pope will take a call. I guess he is embarrassed about this whole business around the scampi issue as indeed the whole of Parliament is. Certainly the ministry must be embarrassed about it. I ask the Minister in the chair to take a call and to explain to us why this innocuous title the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4) was used instead of a title that accurately reflects what this has been about. In fact I would go further and call it the “Scampi Debacle Bill” which might even more accurately reflect what it is about. It has been an extraordinarily difficult time for the players in this industry as indeed it has been for the members of the select committee in trying to come up with reasonable outcomes which I hope and believe we have done. 
I come back to my first question: what is in a name? I think there is an awful lot and I would much prefer to call the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4) the “Fisheries Debacle Bill”.
Brown Peter: Gambling Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Brown Peter: Gambling Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8490] 
PETER BROWN (Senior Whip—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I want to draw the Committee’s attention to the fact that Part 2 contains 185 clauses and has 37 subheadings but the Chairperson took only 13 substantive calls. I say that is not good enough and I hope the Chairperson and the Committee will be a little bit more tolerant on the remaining parts. This is a major bill it is quite complicated and it should be subjected to strong debate. The Minister has a Supplementary Order Paper of some 65 pages representing about 20 percent of the bill itself. I believe it is Parliament’s duty to do this bill justice—at least by having some thorough debate. I say again that having 13 substantive speeches—that is 5-minute speeches—on a part with 185 clauses and 37 subheadings is not good enough. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I was listening to the debate. I say to the member that under Standing Order 139 and Speaker’s ruling 54/2 the Chairperson is the sole judge of relevancy and when to accept the closure. It is entirely in the Chairperson’s hands and is not a debatable matter. Whoever is in the Chair endeavours to be as fair as he or she possibly can recognising of course the proportionality of the House. I am aware that there are several subparts to Part 3 and I assure the member that there will be reasonable speaking opportunities on this part.
Vote: Civil Union Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Civil Union Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:622;Page:17569] 
A personal vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 46 
Adams(P) 
English(P) 
Peters J (P) 
Tisch  
Alexander(P) 
Franks(P) 
Peters W (P) 
Turner(P) 
Baldock(P) 
Gudgeon(P) 
Power(P) 
Wang(P) 
Brash(P) 
Heatley(P) 
Prebble(P) 
Williamson(P) 
Brown (P) 
Hutchison(P) 
Roy(P) 
Woolerton(P) 
Carter D (P) 
Jones  
Ryall(P) 
Worth(P) 
Carter J (P) 
Key(P) 
Scott(P) 
Catchpole(P) 
Mapp(P) 
Shirley(P) 
Coddington  
McNair(P) 
Smith L (P) 
Collins(P) 
Newman(P) 
Smith M (P) 
Copeland  
Ogilvy(P) 
Smith N (P) 
Dunne(P) 
Paraone(P) 
Stewart  
Teller: 
Eckhoff(P) 
Perry (P) 
te Heuheu(P) 
Connell  
Noes 74 
Anderton(P) 
Duynhoven(P) 
Laban(P) 
Simich (P) 
Ardern(P) 
Dyson(P) 
Locke(P) 
Sowry(P) 
Barker(P) 
Ewen-Street (P) 
Mackey J (P) 
Sutton(P) 
Barnett(P) 
Fairbrother(P) 
Mackey M (P) 
Swain(P) 
Benson-Pope  
Field(P) 
Maharey(P) 
Tamihere(P) 
Beyer(P) 
Fitzsimons(P) 
Mahuta(P) 
Tanczos(P) 
Bradford(P) 
Gallagher(P) 
Mallard(P) 
Tizard(P) 
Brownlee(P) 
Goff(P) 
Mark(P) 
Turei(P) 
Burton(P) 
Gosche(P) 
McCully(P) 
Turia(P) 
Carter C (P) 
Goudie(P) 
O'Connor(P) 
Ward(P) 
Chadwick(P) 
Hartley(P) 
Okeroa(P) 
Wilson(P) 
Choudhary(P) 
Hawkins(P) 
Parker(P) 
Wong(P) 
Clark(P) 
Hereora(P) 
Peck(P) 
Yates (P) 
Cosgrove(P) 
Hide(P) 
Pettis  
Cullen(P) 
Hobbs(P) 
Pillay(P) 
Cunliffe(P) 
Hodgson(P) 
Rich(P) 
Dalziel(P) 
Horomia(P) 
Ririnui(P) 
Donald(P) 
Hunt(P) 
Robertson(P) 
Donnelly(P) 
Kedgley(P) 
Robson(P) 
Teller: 
Duncan(P) 
King(P) 
Samuels(P) 
Hughes 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 314 in the name of Richard Worth to omit clause 36 be agreed to.
Vote: New Organisms and Other Matters Bill — In Committee 
Vote: New Organisms and Other Matters Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:8950] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 91 
Labour 52; New Zealand National 26; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 8. 
Noes 24 
New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Part 2 as amended agreed to.
Hunt Jonathan: Prostitution Reform Bill — Procedure Third Reading 
Hunt Jonathan: Prostitution Reform Bill — Procedure Third Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:6585] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I would just like to make a comment to all members of the House. It is a very difficult job when there are just 12 members who can be called even if some members want to split their speeches. I intend to call one member from each party in order of size in the House and the remaining calls will go to the larger parties. I can think of no better or fairer way to do it and that is the practice I will adopt.
Vote: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Transitional Provisions and Controls) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee  
Vote: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Transitional Provisions and Controls) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee  
[Volume:616;Page:11760] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Motion agreed to.
Worth Richard: Supreme Court Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Worth Richard: Supreme Court Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:9024] 
RICHARD WORTH (NZ National—Epsom) 
: 
 I have. I have done it on several occasions.
Benson-Pope David: Minimum Wage Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Benson-Pope David: Minimum Wage Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:608;Page:5161] 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (Senior Whip—NZ Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Mark Ron: Counter-Terrorism Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Mark Ron: Counter-Terrorism Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:9368] 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I rise to confirm that New Zealand First will be voting for Part 3. But in recognition of the concerns raised by the honourable Stephen Franks specifically in respect of the definition of “tracking devices” and after giving his thoughts some consideration I would actually like—and I know that the Minister has been in a deep discussion with officials—to hear an explanation as to why we should not vote for Mr Franks’ amendment. I have some concerns about tracking devices. I think that television cameras are actually tracking devices as well and I am not sure that I would like to see them specifically excluded. But no doubt there will be some explanation as to why we are where we are. 
As I go back through the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee’s report on the bill I think there was some concern—and Mr Franks was quite correct; there was quite some considerable discussion—about the use of tracking devices. We did discuss the practicalities of preventing customs officers and the police from immediately placing tracking devices on baggage and on goods that were coming in through our international airports. We accepted that it is not always possible to seek warrants and to gain judicial approval in time to allow us to slap devices on some people—or on their property—as they enter our country. We hear time and time again that the funds for terrorist operations come from anywhere possible and that drug-running gunrunning and those sorts of illicit activities are always a good source of revenue for terrorists. The movement of recreational drugs—which I understand the Greens are not averse to—such as copious quantities of marijuana and other recreational drugs across our borders is of concern to New Zealand First and specifically if the profits gained from that go towards funding terrorist activities. There have been occasions where such goods have arrived in the country to be picked up—bags and suchlike. We have seen the Minister of Customs announce some rather hefty drug busts in the last month or so and I give full credit to the Customs Service for those busts. I think we need to be very aware that customs officers need to be able to react promptly but lawfully in such instances in order that we are able to track the movement of goods and thereby detain and arrest the people involved in those activities. 
But again noting Mr Franks’ concerns I think the definition of “tracking devices” probably does need a little further explanation. If we need to include television cameras then maybe we should do that. I really would defer to the Minister so that he can offer some explanation as to why his officials do not think we need to amend that definition or amend that clause as recommended by Mr Franks. I look forward to an explanation of that from the Minister.
Cosgrove Clayton: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Cosgrove Clayton: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:626;Page:21041] 
2.  
CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Has he received any reports on the level of mortgage interest rates? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 [ 
Interruption 
] That is more times than the member has managed. Yes I am advised that mortgage rates have remained below 10 percent since December 1999. In the previous 9 years mortgage rates were above 10 percent for 51 of the 108 months under a National Government. 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: What has held mortgage rates below 10 percent since 1999? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: There are many reasons but one is changes to the monetary policy targets agreement that have made inflation targeting more flexible. We have also had much more supportive fiscal policy. But management failures occurred earlier. For example in the 1993 election year the then Governor of the Reserve Bank one Dr Don Brash failed to tighten quickly enough which subsequently led to a heavy tightening of monetary policy and very high mortgage rates. 
John Key 
: Why was Westpac’s chief economist Brendan O’Donovan wrong when he said last week that $1 of tax cuts would be far less inflationary than $1 of increased Government spending? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Because unless the $1 of tax cuts is accompanied by $1 of expenditure decrease then there is a fiscal loosening to that extent. If the member talked to Dr Brash he would find that all else being equal a looser fiscal policy equals higher interest rates. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Can the Minister of Finance confirm that when the previous Governor of the Reserve Bank became governor in September 1988 the floating mortgage rate was 15.5 percent and that when he left that role it was 7.5 percent? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I certainly can. Of course when it was 15.5 percent it was actually lower in real terms than it was when it was 7.5 percent when he left. But the fact of the matter is that during the 1990s for nearly half of the 108 months the interest rates on mortgages were above 10 percent. When that man was in charge of monetary policy he was known as the most hawkish Reserve Bank governor in the entire developed world.
Pillay Lynne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Pillay Lynne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:622;Page:17432] 
11.  
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What steps is he taking to improve the use of information communication technology in teaching? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 Through Project Probe we are investing $48 million to ensure that every school has access to broadband Internet which is something that is appreciated I think even more in some of the rural constituencies—a few held by the National Party—than in the cities. Over 23000 teachers have now picked up the offer to have laptops. We have 83 clusters of schools in the latest round of clustering for professional development. All this money comes in the group that Bill English says will be abolished. 
Lynne Pillay 
: Why is improved use of information and communications technology important? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Research is showing that information and communications technology has tremendous potential to improve teaching and learning outcomes. Getting it into rural areas into rural communities also makes those communities more secure and makes it more likely that people will want to stay in them. 
Hon Bill English 
: Is the Minister not aware that schools which are selling raffle tickets to pay for teachers are becoming more and more concerned that the ministry does not administer properly the hundreds of millions of dollars in education expenditure for which it is responsible? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I accept that some schools choose to use the flexibility given to them by this Government to use locally raised funds and operational funding to improve the ratios—over and above the 2500 extra teachers; over and above roll growth—that this Government has put in. Of course the National Party opposed that. 
Jim Peters 
: When will the Ministry of Education’s Project Probe despite what the Minister has said really demonstrate region by region online learning skill development and school collaboration as the Minister has just stated which were all objectives stated in each of the last 3 funding years? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The member might have noticed that Project Probe is already making considerable inroads into schools around the country. I might say that some of the things he has described also relate to the need to have high-quality principals which is something there has been some progress on in Northland in the last 3 years. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Is the Minister aware that a rural school with a roll of approximately 380 that is currently paying $500 per annum for a dial-up modem connection will have to pay $8000 to $9000 per annum for the full SchoolZone package which schools should have for the maximum benefit and what is he doing to make up the consequential shortfalls in their budgets? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I think that the assumptions in the member’s question are slightly out of date. They might have been true. Relying on some principals who want to have a system designed for Rangitoto College in a very small school is not necessarily appropriate.
Peters Winston: Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading Second Reading 
Peters Winston: Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading Second Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:6744] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I must have been terribly busy but that speech went by so fast I want an extension of time. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: That is not a point of order. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: I want to move an extension of time. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No the member cannot do that. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Yes I can. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No I am sorry Mr Peters. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: I seek leave to move an extension of time. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member cannot seek leave on behalf of someone else. There is a Speaker’s ruling and a Standing Order as well.
Hodgson Pete: Transport Legislation Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Hodgson Pete: Transport Legislation Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:16894] 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Transport Legislation Bill that it take the bill part by part. 
Motion agreed to.
Hunt Jonathan: Urgent Debates — National Certificate of Educational Achievement—Scholarship Examination 
Hunt Jonathan: Urgent Debates — National Certificate of Educational Achievement—Scholarship Examination 
[Volume:623;Page:18469] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have received a further application for an urgent debate from the Hon Bill English concerning the Government’s decision retrospectively to introduce distinction certificates so as not to disadvantage students in scholarship subjects. This is a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility and in view of the widespread public interest in this matter I am prepared to allow a debate.
Ogilvy Bernie: State Sector Amendment Bill (No 3) — First Reading 
Ogilvy Bernie: State Sector Amendment Bill (No 3) — First Reading 
[Volume:614;Page:10637] 
BERNIE OGILVY (United Future) 
: 
 United Future will support the first reading of the State Sector Amendment Bill (No 3). We do not think it is fair to put boards of trustees in the kinds of difficulties in which they found themselves during the last negotiating round for the secondary school teachers’ contract particularly when it continued for such a protracted period of time. As we know it was up to each board to decide whether to dock the pay of each teacher taking industrial action. But many boards were very sympathetic towards teachers’ claims especially since the boards included representatives of teaching staff and students as well as principals. In cases where the board did decide to dock pay that often created tension within the board and between the board and the staff and had the potential to continue to impinge on other spheres of school life. There was a lot of inconsistency across schools about whether their teachers were facing any financial consequences for their actions and that created inequity amongst teachers as to who was getting paid and who was not. 
This bill I believe tidies up yet another inequity. Although teachers have the same ability as other employees to take industrial action they do not face the same consequences if there is no guarantee they will face the same kinds of sanctions as other employees. I think that this bill attempts to take boards of trustees out of the equation by transferring their employer functions to the State Services Commission. However it relies on boards informing the State Services Commission and some of the feedback from boards since this bill was introduced suggests that their sympathy with the teachers might extend to sending false returns about how many staff are actually teaching. The select committee will need to look at how that is going to work in practice and it would be very useful to listen to the School Trustees Association about the feasibility of such requirements. 
On another matter and it has been raised I bring the attention of the House to clause 5 which relates to redundancy resulting from school mergers and/or closures—a very topical issue at the moment. Although each board is still a separate employer in the case of a merger or closure an employee may be offered a similar position by another board in the same locality but without the need for the board to comply with the provisions of the Act that require employers to advertise vacancies and give preference to persons who best suit that position. I am very sympathetic to teachers and indeed communities who face the prospects of school closures or mergers but I believe that schools recruiting teachers should have the merit of the applicants uppermost in their minds. I too invite the select committee to investigate the issue of selecting teachers on merit rather than just by region in its consideration of the bill.
Hide Rodney: Motions — Tomb of the Unknown Warrior—Recognition of Service of New Zealanders 
Hide Rodney: Motions — Tomb of the Unknown Warrior—Recognition of Service of New Zealanders 
[Volume:621;Page:16871] 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 It is my great privilege to rise on behalf of the ACT party to support the motion today. Today our country welcomed home a young man from a very distant place and from a distant war. He was a young man when he left and he is a young man still. His friends and his family grew old and are no longer with us. A generation has been born after him has grown up has enjoyed living in New Zealand and has passed on too. Now it is our turn. But that young man never grew old so he was welcomed home to our country a young man. We will never know that New Zealander’s—that Unknown Warrior’s—name. We will not know where he was born; we do not know precisely where he died. We do not know how he died. His own family is lost to us just like he was lost to them. We can use this ceremony today as a reminder of what we have lost in war and what we have gained. 
The story of the Unknown Warrior is one of extraordinary bravery and incredible sacrifice. It gives to us through our memories a deeper faith in our democracy and in ourselves; a deeper understanding of what it is to be a New Zealander. That Unknown Warrior—that New Zealander—can continue to serve his country. He can be a reminder of our love of peace and a reminder of the need for our country to be ever-vigilant against brute force bad faith injustice oppression and persecution both here in New Zealand and overseas. Only if we remember those things can that anonymous Kiwi known only to God lie in peace. 
 We know through our grandfathers our fathers our uncles our aunties our neighbours and our friends that war is glorious only to those who have never experienced it. To those like this Unknown Warrior war was hell; they knew its horrors. But we must be careful never to link war itself with those who go to war. We should grant to those who go to war respect for the individual contributions their service deserves. We should honour those who serve our country just as our Unknown Warrior served his country. We should remember that this Unknown Warrior did not sweat digging trenches in the interests of the self; the sailors on those convoys through those dark nights did not toil there for a dividend; and the nurses on the hospital ships did not work extraordinary hours for praise or notoriety. All of them made their sacrifices for the common good. 
Their message is a good one for today because it is a message about the importance of putting the interests of the community over the self. If we are true to their memory and if we follow in their footsteps we can continue to make New Zealand a better place. Our Unknown Warrior has returned today not to his family as everyone would have hoped but to all of us. In reflecting on this young man’s return we are reminded that young men like him will not grow old as we will grow old and we shall forever remember their sacrifice and their service.
Hughes Darren: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Hughes Darren: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:625;Page:20540] 
10.  
DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) 
 to the  
Minister for Courts 
: What recent announcements has he made regarding funding for the improvement of court buildings? 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister for Courts) 
: 
 Today I announced additional funding of $39 million targeted at five key buildings and property projects. The new Budget money is part of a long-term capital works programme to bring our courts back up to a modern standard and to make them a safe place to visit. The funding will provide new courthouses to replace the Levin and Invercargill courts while the courts at Hastings and Manukau will be overhauled and expanded. The package will also include provision for the funding of land purchases at New Plymouth. It continues the Government’s commitment to improving court buildings. 
Darren Hughes 
: Will those five upgrades including the $6 million for a new courthouse at Levin include improvements to courtroom security? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: Yes. The upgrade at Levin was welcomed by the local member and the local people. I can also say that the improvements will be a continuation of developments to provide the public with one point of entry to provide court security staff with a greater degree of control. One point of entry will mean that security will be much like it is at airports. Courts will have a screening point at which point they will have a greater level of assurance about staff safety and the safety of the judiciary. That is a significant improvement and is an advancement in providing a modern safe court environment.
Swain Paul: Overseas Investment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Swain Paul: Overseas Investment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:21591] 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:610;Page:7136] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The first comment was made by the Prime Minister and later taken up by Margaret Wilson. I am referring to the Prime Minister’s comment that is exclusively in her name. The next point I want to raise with you is simply that I am asking her to reconcile her reported comments not someone else’s and not those of the Associate Minister of Justice. That surely is pretty significant; besides which where is that person today as well? Frankly—and I want to say this very clearly—if the Prime Minister does not want to answer questions that is fine but she should come out and publicly say so rather than run around this country as someone who is prepared to take on anyone and everyone until she gets to the House. If she is scared she should say so.
Duncan Helen: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Duncan Helen: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:609;Page:6637] 
6.  
HELEN DUNCAN (NZ Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for ACC 
: Can she report any progress on the development of effective measures to reduce New Zealand’s injury rates? 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for ACC) 
: 
 I had great pleasure today in launching the  
New Zealand Injury Prevention Strategy 
. The strategy has been developed after extensive public consultation and input from many people involved in injury prevention in our communities. It has two key goals of achieving a positive safety culture in New Zealand and creating safe environments. 
Helen Duncan 
: How will the strategy help to reduce injury rates? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: The strategy will enable better collaboration and integration of effort between a wide range of agencies and organisations. It will ensure there are no gaps in injury prevention activity. It will help to strengthen the capability of the injury prevention workforce and will promote better quality and dissemination of injury information. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: Why despite her Government saying for the last 3½ years that it would focus on accident prevention do the death rates of motor accidents in New Zealand remain over 50 percent higher than those in Britain and why did moderate to serious injuries rise by 14000 between 1999 and 2002; and why should anyone believe her new measures are any more effective than her past failed rhetoric? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: As the member should know—because I am sure he is a member who does read the information provided to his select committee—in fact the number of road fatalities has gone down. However the number of serious injuries—that is people who have been involved in serious incidents and have perhaps permanent or complex injuries—has increased and that is due to a variety of factors. The member should also note that in some of the accounts because of the classification of injuries the fact that the number has gone up is not necessarily a reflection of the fact that the rate of injuries has increased. The significantly increased participation in the paid labour market since the election of the Labour-led Government is a clear example of why that is the case.
Vote: Counter-Terrorism Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Vote: Counter-Terrorism Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:9365] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 17 
ACT New Zealand 8; Green Party 9. 
Noes 100 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Keith Locke to clause 15 be agreed to: 
to amend new section 47A(1) of the principal Act by omitting paragraph (d).
Vote: Customs and Excise (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Customs and Excise (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:608;Page:5445] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the schedules be agreed to 
Ayes 66 
Noes 37 
Schedules agreed to. 
Labour 52; Green Party 5; United Future 7; Progressive 2. 
New Zealand National 18; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6. 
Bill reported without amendment.
Anderton Jim: Customs and Excise (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Anderton Jim: Customs and Excise (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:608;Page:5445] 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Acting Minister of Customs) 
: I move  
That the Customs and Excise (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
. The bill before the House was promoted by the ministerial committee on drugs and alcohol as a health not a revenue measure. The Minister of Finance I have to tell the House was not on that committee is not on that committee and had nothing whatever to do with the idea of promoting this bill. 
The objectives of the drug and alcohol national programme of action are simple and clear: a reduction in the supply of alcohol and effective control of it demand reduction and problem limitation. This measure is an attempt to reduce demand and every piece of evidence that the committee of Ministers who promoted this bill had before it indicated that alcohol consumption is price sensitive particularly where young people are concerned. If members want to know whether there is any international support for that I say there are a number of international papers. I have a list of them and I will provide that list to people who are seriously interested in the issue so they can do the research themselves. 
Suffice it to say at this hour of the night that the Government believes this measure will reduce the incidence of binge drinking and heavy drinking. It is not a panacea nor is it every single step. There are 36 actions in the action plan that Ministers are developing for drug and alcohol harm minimisation. This is simply one of them. The bill is a step in the right direction I applaud it and I recommend its passage to the House.
Tisch Lindsay: Ngati Ruanui Claims Settlement Bill — Procedure 
Tisch Lindsay: Ngati Ruanui Claims Settlement Bill — Procedure 
[Volume:607;Page:4933] 
LINDSAY TISCH (Junior Whip—NZ National) 
: 
 I seek leave that the debate on the Committee stage of this bill be taken as one wide-ranging debate over all parts. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There is not. It will so occur.
Speaker’s Rulings — Contempt Finding—Hon Dr Nick Smith 
Speaker’s Rulings — Contempt Finding—Hon Dr Nick Smith 
[Volume:616;Page:12365] 
Speaker’s Rulings 
Contempt Finding—Hon Dr Nick Smith 
Mr SPEAKER 
: On 24 March 2004 the Hon Dr Nick Smith was found to be in contempt of court by the High Court. Dr Smith subsequently wrote to me seeking from me a ruling as to his status as a member of Parliament in view of this finding. Under section 129(1) of the Electoral Act 1993 if the finding of contempt did operate to create a disqualification it is the Speaker’s duty to declare the seat vacant. I have considered the position created by the finding of contempt and have received a superb piece of work from the Clerk of the House which I will table shortly and which I would invite all members to read. I have concluded that the finding of contempt against Dr Smith is not conviction of a crime within section 55(1)(d) of the Electoral Act and that consequently Dr Smith’s seat is not vacant. Therefore no further action is necessary on my part. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am sure that I will find that that ruling is correct when I come to read it but I would be intrigued to know how you can make that ruling when the ruling on the Hon Harry Duynhoven was just as clear and you were just as able to make a decision then but in that case you referred it to the Privileges Committee and in this case you did not. I would like to know what principle you follow as to when you send things to the Privileges Committee and when you do not. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I would invite the member to read the report that Mr McGee has presented to me which goes into that in some considerable detail. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think the answer to the question is that at the critical time when you would have been required by law to make a decision there was no need to make a decision and that was pointed out by me and others in this House before you made the decision. But the other question I want to ask is whether it is usual for a quasi-judicial decision to be made namely by yourself today and have people applaud it or are we going down the track of American behaviour in the courts? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order.
Voting — Correction 
Voting — Correction 
[Volume:618;Page:13989] 
Voting 
Correction 
DARREN HUGHES (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 On the question before the House previously on the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill Mr Peck’s proxy vote was inadvertently omitted from being recorded with the Ayes. I would seek leave for Mr Peck’s vote to be recorded as being in favour of the first reading. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is not. It will be so. The new result is Ayes 77 Noes 42.
Vote: Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:12592] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
House resumed.
Vote: Standing Orders 
Vote: Standing Orders 
[Volume:614;Page:10736] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments to the Standing Orders set out in Appendix A of the Report of the Standing Orders Committee on the Review of Standing Orders be adopted and come into force on 10 February 2004. 
Ayes 107 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 13 
New Zealand First 13. 
Motion agreed to.
Vote: Tariff (New Zealand - Thailand Closer Economic Partnership) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Tariff (New Zealand - Thailand Closer Economic Partnership) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:21408] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 51; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; Green Party 8. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Keith Locke to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to insert in subparagraph (i) of section 7(1)(h) after the words “being the produce or manufacture of Thailand” the words “whose product processing complies with core International Labour Organisation Conventions”.
Donnelly Brian: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Donnelly Brian: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:615;Page:11374] 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
: 
 In replying to a previous question the Minister referred to a daily rate for early childhood education. I seek leave to table the pages from the Budget that demonstrate there is an hourly rate for early childhood education and not a daily rate. 
Document not tabled.
Cosgrove Clayton: New Zealand Horticulture Export Authority Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
Cosgrove Clayton: New Zealand Horticulture Export Authority Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
[Volume:607;Page:4681] 
CLAYTON COSGROVE (NZ Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 As a member of the Primary Production Committee I rise to take a short call in support of this bill. This bill is about retaining the integrity and benefits of cooperation within the industry rather than putting that sort of benefit at risk through a pure market model. The industry has come to the Government and Parliament and asked for reforms—as have other industries like the dairy and pipfruit industries. The Government and the select committee will listen to those submissions but we would obviously like to get the job done as soon as possible to signal to the industry that it must abide by the principles of the regulations which state that all marketing should be cooperative and collaborative. It is about enabling the kiwifruit industry to retain its quality and its standards maximise its benefits and maintain its integrity. I support the bill on that basis.
Collins Judith: Gambling Bill — Third Reading 
Collins Judith: Gambling Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:611;Page:8640] 
JUDITH COLLINS (NZ National—Clevedon) 
: 
 I wish to make a personal explanation under Standing Order 343. I believe that my honour was impugned by the previous speaker. When I spoke to the previous speaker I certainly did congratulate United Future on some of the changes it had been able to bring forward in this bill and I have made it perfectly plain to the House that I was very pleased with some of the changes in the bill. I certainly have not ever said that I congratulated them on letting Internet gambling come into this country.
Vote: Standing Orders 
Vote: Standing Orders 
[Volume:627;Page:22364] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 97 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 16 
New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 3. 
Motion agreed to.
Hughes Darren: Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill — First Reading 
Hughes Darren: Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:624;Page:19375] 
DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 Two sets of crocodile tears flowed from the National Party list MP David Carter. The first related to the number of Ministers who have been responsible for building issues over the term of this Government. He did not appear to like the fact that there has been a change of responsibility across several Ministers during this time. That would be fine on its own except for the huge irony that David Carter is the only Opposition spokesman in Parliament to have been sacked from the front bench twice. So David Carter who has gone forwards and backwards then forwards and backwards again has the audacity to get up in Parliament and complain about the number of Ministers who have been responsible for this area. 
We have taken building issues extraordinarily— 
Hon David Carter 
: I never got sacked for lying. 
DARREN HUGHES 
: The member says that he never got sacked from his area. He used to be the MP for Banks Peninsula but he got sacked from that job by the Hon Ruth Dyson. 
So that was the first set of crocodile tears. The second set of crocodile tears from the Hon David Carter came in this form: he said that the select committee would not get enough time to consider this legislation. Mr Carter was last on his pins in the sitting week before Parliament adjourned for Easter. If he had sat down just 30 seconds before the House rose this bill could have gone to the select committee for 10 days of submissions and consideration which is more than it will get now. So with two instances of crocodile tears David Carter has shown himself to be totally opposed to the very points that he tried to make in his speech. 
This is a very straightforward bill that makes three key amendments to three Acts— 
Hon David Carter 
: What’s the intent? 
DARREN HUGHES 
: I will tell the member what it means as he has not read the bill. The Building Act the Commerce Act and the Health Act all require those bits of information to be available free of charge on the Internet. Clearly that will not be appropriate from the point of view of intellectual property rights so the Government wants to seek the permission of Parliament to send the bill to the select committee to consider. 
I support the first reading of the bill and I am only sad that the National Party’s crocodile tears did not allow for proper consultation with the public.
Benson-Pope David: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) — Third Reading 
Benson-Pope David: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) — Third Reading 
[Volume:619;Page:15262] 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister of Fisheries) 
: 
 I move  
That the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) be now read a third time 
. This bill amends the Fisheries Act 1996 as well as the Fisheries Act 1983 and the Fisheries Amendment Act (No 2) 2004. Part 3 of the bill was reported back separately and received royal assent on Thursday 12 August 2004 as the Fisheries Amendment Act (No 4). 
It is essential to progress the matters in this bill. The Supplementary Order Paper 246 reflects many of the concerns raised by the Primary Production Committee in its report back to this House. This bill contains a number of provisions that will improve the 1996 Fisheries Act so that it can better achieve its purpose which is to provide for utilisation of fisheries resources while ensuring sustainability. These improvements include providing more direction as to when the quota management system will be used to manage fisheries improving the way quota is allocated when a species is brought into the quota management system revising the current regime for authorising access to commercial fisheries removing the permit moratorium that is unnecessarily impeding use of our fisheries resources extending coverage of the quota management system to provide for improved management of highly migratory species beyond New Zealand fisheries waters and enabling the introduction into the quota management system of green-lipped mussels in area GLM9 on 1 October 2004. 
This bill provides for improvements in the way fisheries resources will be managed so that the purpose of the 1996 Fisheries Act can be better achieved. I am delighted to commend the bill to the House.
Hunt Jonathan: Responses — David Henderson—Statements Made By Hon Dr Michael Cullen MP 
Hunt Jonathan: Responses — David Henderson—Statements Made By Hon Dr Michael Cullen MP 
[Volume:623;Page:18229] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I herby present a response under Standing Orders 161 and 163 on the application of Mr David Henderson relating to statements made by the Hon Dr Michael Cullen MP on 19 October 2004.
Hunt Jonathan: Visitors — Standing Committee on Health Legislative Assembly of the Australian Capital Territory 
Hunt Jonathan: Visitors — Standing Committee on Health Legislative Assembly of the Australian Capital Territory 
[Volume:615;Page:11077] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Honourable members I have much pleasure in informing you that the members of the Standing Committee on Health from the Legislative Assembly of the Australian Capital Territory led by the chairperson Ms Kerrie Tucker MLA are present in the gallery. I am sure members would wish the delegation be welcomed.
Hunt Jonathan:  
Hunt Jonathan:  
[Volume:607;Page:4110] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Please be seated. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I haven’t finished. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member has finished. He will be leaving the Chamber if he does not resume his seat. I refer the member to Speaker’s ruling 51/4 which states: “Strictly speaking a member is entitled to be heard without interruption but with the tacit consent of the House the rule has been relaxed in favour of members asking reasonable questions.” I will not be totally unreasonable. I just say that this is an important and serious debate and all members are entitled to have their say.
Ririnui Mita: Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Bill — In Committee Procedure Third Reading 
Ririnui Mita: Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Bill — In Committee Procedure Third Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:20969] 
Hon MITA RIRINUI (Minister of State) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Vote: Taxation (Annual Rates Maori Organisations Taxpayer Compliance and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Taxation (Annual Rates Maori Organisations Taxpayer Compliance and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:607;Page:4243] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 46 
New Zealand National 27 New Zealand First 11; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Noes 71 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 59 in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen to Part 3 be agreed to.