edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Simich Clem: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
Simich Clem: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:15651] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I thank all members for their contribution and I thank Dr Michael Cullen. He is absolutely correct. I had no doubt about it at all. I do not think it is setting any precedent; it is just plain common sense. We follow what is laid out in the Standing Orders and it is as I have outlined it. I wish to continue with clause 2 but if someone wants to recall the Speaker that is no problem.
Sittings of the House 
Sittings of the House 
[Volume:613;Page:10219] 
Sittings of the House 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek leave for the House at its rising to adjourn until the ringing of the bell on Tuesday 2 December 2003. There is a luncheon for the Speaker of the Bundestag. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There appears to be none.
Vote: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8228] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 30 
New Zealand National 23; ACT New Zealand 7. 
Noes 81 
Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 8; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Rodney Hide to clause 255 be agreed to: 
to omit the words “section 55C” in new subsection 114A(1)(b) and new subsection 114A(2) and substitute the words “section 55A”.
Choudhary Ashraf: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Choudhary Ashraf: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:616;Page:12442] 
7.  
Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for the Environment 
: What recent developments have there been to better protect public health and the environment from the risks posed by hazardous substances? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for the Environment) 
: On 1 April this year single component dangerous goods were transferred to the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act of 1996. This brings about 80 percent by volume of New Zealand’s hazardous substances under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act including most major fuels such as petrol diesel and natural gas. The transfer enables the Environmental Risk Management Authority to control more effectively the use and storage of these substances thus protecting public health and the environment. 
Dr Ashraf Choudhary 
: What other initiatives will the Government undertake to reduce the risk posed by hazardous substances? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: Over the next few months the Ministry for the Environment will be working with several regional councils to collect and dispose of unused agrichemicals from rural properties. This will be a free service offered to farmers to help reduce the environmental risk from chemicals and waste in rural areas. Once collected the agrichemicals will be exported to France for environmentally sound disposal.
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
[Volume:607;Page:4269] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I confirm that it is the Government’s intention at this point to take urgency the week after next. The House will lift by 6 p.m. Friday.
Vote: Overseas Investment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Overseas Investment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:21575] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to 
Ayes 7 
Green Party 7. 
Noes 104 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Rod Donald to 18 be agreed to: 
to add to subclause (2) the following new paragraph: 
(g)whether there are or will be adequate mechanisms in place to ensure that any decision made is consistent with the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi including: 
(i)provision made for settlements to claims made under the of Waitangi including return of land; 
(ii)capacity retained for the establishment of Maori and Crown resource co-management structures. 
(iii)protection of the right to benefit from enjoy and exercise authority over Maori taonga.
Mackey Janet: Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Bill — Third Reading 
Mackey Janet: Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:612;Page:8899] 
JANET MACKEY (NZ Labour—East Coast) 
: 
 I am very pleased to rise in support of the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Bill. I commend the Minister for her initiative in putting forward this legislation to address the serious concerns about the industry. I congratulate the select committee on its work. It is probably an ongoing regret of the whole nation that members opposite did absolutely nothing about this issue in the 9 years they were in Government. 
Bill read a third time.
Simich Clem: Prisoners' and Victims' Claims Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Simich Clem: Prisoners' and Victims' Claims Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:626;Page:20950] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Other typescript amendments in the name of Marc Alexander to omit definitions of “account” “immediate family” “incapable” “judgment” “parent” “Secretary” “Secretary of the Tribunal” “Tribunal” “victim” and “victim’s claim” are out of order because the question has already been decided. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to omit the definition of  
compensation 
.
Tanczos Nandor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Tanczos Nandor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:609;Page:6641] 
12.  
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Corrections 
: Does any agreement exist between the Department of Corrections and the protesters who have been occupying the proposed Northland prison site regarding the terms on which the occupation would be permitted to remain? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Corrections) 
: 
 No not since the protesters broke the agreed terms. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: Does the Minister accept that the terms of the agreement were that the occupation must be peaceful must not impede traffic into and out of the site and must not create a public safety hazard; and can he explain how the actions of one individual in burning a disused ute in the middle of a field—actions that have been repudiated by the occupiers—break the terms of that agreement? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: Since the occupation I am advised that protesters have set fire to a car blocked the access way cut fences blocked the main highway and ignored hygiene issues. The protesters were advised that they no longer had permission to be on the site and they were asked to leave. They refused. They were then advised that they were trespassing. Trespass notices were posted but were torn down. The police have now been asked to remove the protesters and they will be removed. 
Georgina Beyer 
: What positive benefits will there be for the community with the establishment of the Northland Regional Corrections Facility? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: There will be many benefits for the local community with the establishment of this facility including the creation of 180 new jobs once the prison opens. It is expected that most of those jobs will be filled by local Northland people. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: Can the Minister confirm that despite attempts by the occupiers to achieve some mediation between the Department of Corrections the police and Te Taumata Kaumatua o Ngapuhi nui tonu the department has refused to take part in such mediation; and will he guarantee that no action will be taken to evict the occupation until the kaumatua have had an opportunity to hui which is expected to be next Wednesday? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: No. Everybody’s patience has run out.
Jones Dail: Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Jones Dail: Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:610;Page:7723] 
DAIL JONES (Junior Whip—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. So do I take it from your ruling that you regard United Future as being a Government party bearing in mind that it got the second call last night ahead of New Zealand First?
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:607;Page:5037] 
4.  
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: With respect to her answer to question number 10 on Tuesday 8 April expressing her confidence in the Minister of Immigration what inquiries if any had she personally made regarding New Zealand Immigration Service activities abroad over the last 3 years before she gave her answer? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 I have no need to make such inquiries as I have confidence that the Minister deals capably with the detail of issues in her portfolio. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Is that so? Well how come her Minister was advised last year that New Delhi officials within the high commission are allowing directions to be given outside the high commission by an Indian chap wishing to become an instant millionaire by selling visas at $250 a pop to all and sundry—a complaint made to her Minister about which she has done nothing like everything else she has been asked to look into?  
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: This Government does not tolerate corruption. Any allegations are investigated. 
Pansy Wong 
: How can she claim that the Minister is capable when the solution offered by her Minister of Immigration to the embarrassing situation of students queuing up overnight to get their student permits reviewed is to withdraw that same-day service when many students who are enrolling for 4 to 6 week courses would not be able to do so in future because it takes 5 weeks to do it by post? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I imagine that the Minister and her officials would take whatever steps they deemed necessary to deal with the demand. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Could the Prime Minister tell me whether she thinks it fit that a Minister of Immigration who has been advised of this in respect of immigration officials allowing—and I read from a letter here—someone to sit under a tree outside immigration offices on the street leading to the railway museum in New Delhi to sell visas on their behalf and take instructions from him; if the Minister heard this and has done nothing should that Minister not simply be fired? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I repeat: this Government does not tolerate corruption nor has any New Zealand Government ever tolerated corruption. All allegations will be investigated.
[Volume:606;Page:3387] 
I congratulate the Prime Minister on what I think was a very good speech. People say it was boring but if it is boring having the strongest economy in the OECD I want to be bored. If it is boring having the lowest unemployment rates we have had in 15 years I want to be bored. If it is boring having a housing crisis—as we do in Invercargill because the population is increasing at such a rate and housing stock is going up in price so much that people can no longer afford it and the young people on Mr McNair’s sleeve are coming into the electorate in such numbers that we can longer afford it—I say that is good. Having a housing problem in Invercargill is a very good thing because about 8 years ago the word in Southland was: “Last out turn the lights out.” No longer—the issue in my city now is finding enough people for the work.
Shirley Ken: General Debate 
Shirley Ken: General Debate 
[Volume:627;Page:22066] 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (ACT) 
: 
 If the member took offence then I certainly withdraw and apologise. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you very much. I have dealt with the issue.
Ririnui Mita: Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Ririnui Mita: Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:625;Page:20205] 
Hon MITA RIRINUI (Associate Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 I thank the member Georgina te Heuheu for her contribution and for her desire to seek clarification on whangai according to the tikanga of Ngati Tuwharetoa ki Kawerau. As she will be aware and as I am sure every Maori member in this Chamber is aware respective iwi have their own tikanga in terms of whangai. Ngati Tuwharetoa ki Kawerau have been inclusive in the interpretation of their tikanga. Whether that would make a Chinese person Gerry Brownlee a Pakeha person or anyone else of any ethnicity eligible for the benefits of the settlement will be entirely up to Ngati Tuwharetoa ki Kawerau to decide in accordance with their tikanga. I do not think it is appropriate for any iwi that is not connected with this settlement to challenge their right to do so. 
I have family members who have been legally adopted and who have been whangai-ed according to tikanga who are not of Maori descent. They—meaning my brothers sisters cousins or whoever—will enjoy the benefits of any settlement that comes through their adopted parents. Those benefits come through that line—they do not come any other way—as would be the case for a natural child of any beneficiary of any settlement.
Smith Nick: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Smith Nick: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:624;Page:19700] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I want to raise a serious issue about corrections to answers of which I seek a considered ruling. One week ago I asked this same Minister a question about when he knew about the flaws in the Building Act. He gave an answer that subsequently turned out to be incorrect. Later in the day he came to the Chamber and provided a correction. As is well known after question time not many members are in the House. I quite properly sought a copy of the correction. I had the incorrect answer and I wanted the corrected answer. I sought it from the Hansard 
office and it told me that no the only place I could get the corrected answer was from the Minister’s office. But now a week after the incorrect answer was given to me I still do not have the corrected answer. The reason I seek a considered ruling from you is that I believe it is proper that when a Minister gives an incorrect answer and is forced to correct it in the House the member who received the wrong answer must have some right to know what the correction was. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Members who are dissatisfied with answers to written questions should first take the matter up with the Minister then second write to the Speaker. On the question of the correction the member sought to an oral answer I will take that matter up.
Chadwick Steve: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Chadwick Steve: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:617;Page:12710] 
6.  
STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) 
 to the  
Minister for Food Safety 
: What recent reports has she received regarding the safety of New Zealand food? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister for Food Safety) 
: 
 I have seen the results of the total diet survey and the summaries of the animal products residue monitoring programme and the dairy monitoring programme. Of the 117340 tests there were just nine results where the residue was over the maximum residue limit. Maximum residue limits are not safety levels. That means that 99.9934 percent of the results met or bettered the regulatory agricultural compound residue requirements. That is a wonderful result for our food industry and it should be congratulated. 
Steve Chadwick 
: What implications do those results have for New Zealand? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: As a food exporter New Zealand depends on a solid reputation for food safety. This result gives our international consumers confidence that we produce high-quality food. 
Sue Kedgley 
: How can she assure New Zealand consumers that our food is always safe when recent tests have found that up to 50 percent of chicken flocks are contaminated with antibiotic-resistant bacteria which of course poses a major health risk and given that none of the surveys that she has mentioned test our food for the presence of antibiotic-resistant bacteria how can consumers be confident that they are not eating antibiotic-resistant bugs with their chicken and pork? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: New Zealanders can be confident that our food is as safe as any in the world because of the very good monitoring programmes that are undertaken in New Zealand and the fact that we are vigilant when it comes to ensuring that safety programmes are undertaken by our producers of food. 
Sue Kedgley 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I asked specifically about testing for antibiotic-resistant bacteria. The Minister did not answer my question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister did address the question. If she wants to comment she can. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: There were three questions in fact. The last part was about how we can assure New Zealanders about the safety of their food and I have answered that. 
Steve Chadwick 
: What were the results for our largest dairy supplier Fonterra? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Fonterra was 100 percent compliant and as New Zealand’s largest exporter Fonterra’s achievement is especially important. It is important to have that noted in the House because I am very proud of an organisation like Fonterra—[ 
Interruption 
]—even though Tony Ryall obviously is not.
Vote: Social Security (Social Assistance) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Social Security (Social Assistance) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:624;Page:19580] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 101 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 18 
ACT New Zealand 8; Green Party 9; Maori Party 1. 
Part 2 agreed to.
Hunt Jonathan: Sale of Liquor Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Hunt Jonathan: Sale of Liquor Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12348] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that. Is there any objection? There is not.
Vote: Consumer Protection (Definitions of Goods and Services) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Consumer Protection (Definitions of Goods and Services) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6902] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 35 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Noes 80 
Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 7; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 11 be agreed to: 
to omit paragraph (b)(vi) of section 2(1) from the definition of  
goods 
.
Hartley Ann: Status of Redundancy Payments Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Hartley Ann: Status of Redundancy Payments Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:615;Page:11547] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I call Paul Adams.
Clark Helen: Obituaries — Pope John Paul II 
Clark Helen: Obituaries — Pope John Paul II 
[Volume:624;Page:19547] 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 I move  
That this House express its deep sadness on the recent death of His Holiness Pope John Paul II and express its sincere condolences to the Holy See and to Roman Catholics in New Zealand and around the world who are feeling a profound sense of loss and sorrow at this time.  
On Sunday when the death of Pope John Paul II was announced people around the world stopped what they were doing to reflect on his passing and the meaning of his life—and what a remarkable life it was from his birth in Poland in 1920 to enduring the Nazi occupation of his country and the war as a young man and then seeing a communist regime rule his country for the next four and a half decades. Pope John Paul II became not only Poland’s first pope but also the world’s best-known and most travelled pope reaching out to every continent and across the faiths to communicate. His visit to New Zealand as Pope is recalled with great affection. The great causes of our time—peace and disarmament human rights and democracy and equality for all—were all causes for which he was a strong advocate. The world is a better place for his life; he made a difference. 
Last year I was privileged to meet the Pope personally at the Vatican. I found his body to be frail but his mind very sharp. He spoke of his hope for peace in the Middle East and he spoke about his respect for our country as a force for peace. That was a proud day for me. 
In recent weeks as we have watched the Pope’s worsening illness we have also admired his great courage during considerable suffering—even appearing at his window in the Vatican last Wednesday and in his final hours addressing a message to the world’s young people. 
 Messages have been sent by the Governor-General and by me to the Holy See and to the Catholic Church in New Zealand to express the condolences of this country. A condolence book is available in Parliament’s first floor reception area for members of Parliament parliamentary staff and members of the public to sign. Flags flew at half mast on public buildings on Sunday and Monday and will be at half mast again on the day of the funeral. I have announced today that the Governor-General Dame Silvia Cartwright will be representing the people of New Zealand at the Pope’s funeral in Rome on Friday. 
Once again I express the sincere condolences of the Government to the Holy See and to New Zealand’s Roman Catholic community. May Pope John Paul II rest in peace.
Hunt Jonathan: Visitors — Republic of Ireland—Member of Joint Committee on Finance and Public Accounts 
Hunt Jonathan: Visitors — Republic of Ireland—Member of Joint Committee on Finance and Public Accounts 
[Volume:616;Page:12365] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing honourable members that Mr M J Nolan member of the Joint Committee on Finance and Public Accounts Republic of Ireland is present in the gallery. I am sure members would wish he be welcomed.
Robson Matt: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Robson Matt: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:621;Page:16306] 
3.  
Hon MATT ROBSON (Deputy Leader—Progressive) 
 to the  
Minister for Industry and Regional Development 
: What recent announcements has he made that indicate further Government assistance to aid regional economic development? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Minister for Industry and Regional Development) 
: 
 Last Thursday I launched a major regional development initiative for the Eastern Bay of Plenty the National Centre of Maintenance Engineering Excellence. It is supported by $2 million from the Regional Partnerships Programme. That initiative will lift skill levels and address the major shortage of maintenance staff both in the region and nationally and is an essential element in removing barriers to economic development. The latest growth figures for June 2004—the annual average figures—for the Bay of Plenty an area known well to some members on the Opposition side of the House show 5.3 percent GDP growth compared with the June 1999 figure of 0.5 percent under the previous National-led Government. That is a tenfold increase in growth performance. 
Hon Matt Robson 
: What are the benefits for the regions from such regional development programmes? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: For the Eastern Bay of Plenty engineering training initiative the economic impact on GDP in the region is estimated at $14 million per year. The New Zealand Institute of Economic Research estimates that over 12 years the value of the project to the New Zealand economy will be $1.3 billion. 
Moana Mackey 
: How many major regional development programmes are currently under way? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: So far there have been 14 major regional initiatives launched in New Zealand with a further 13 in the immediate pipeline. Three regions are well on the way to having or have had their second major regional initiative approved. The end result of course is that we have a national growth rate of 4.3 percent. Compared with the same time under the National-led Government when the rate was 1.5 percent that is a 187 percent increase in the performance of New Zealand.
Carter John: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Carter John: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 19 June 2003. Volume:609;Page:6439. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
JOHN CARTER (Senior Whip—NZ National) 
: 
 Mr Key has to leave early and we have arranged with all the parties—with the exception of New Zealand First as I did not manage to speak to the “young” member Mr Peter Brown—that Mr Key takes the next slot and every one else drop down. I seek leave for that to happen. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There appears to be none.
Williamson Maurice: Obituaries — Maurice Wilkins 
Williamson Maurice: Obituaries — Maurice Wilkins 
[Volume:620;Page:15947] 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) 
: 
 I move 
 That this House do express great sympathy at the loss of Maurice Wilkins a prominent New Zealander famous for his work with DNA and on the Manhattan Project for the atomic bomb 
. Some people in this House will not know that he worked on the atomic bomb. Interestingly he was so appalled at the ability of that device to take such an enormous amount of life that he then became a prominent member of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament and worked on that for a long time in his life. One of the most interesting things I found on the Internet in an item about his death was that he was born in Pongaroa in the Wairarapa and the Internet article stated that the nearest big town to that is Pahiatua—which I found quite fascinating. I hope this House does express that sympathy.
Vote: Te Whanau-a-Taupara Trust Empowering Bill — Second Reading Third Reading 
Vote: Te Whanau-a-Taupara Trust Empowering Bill — Second Reading Third Reading 
[Volume:608;Page:5732] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Te Whanau-a-Taupara Trust Empowering Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 108 
Noes 7 
Bill read a second time. 
Labour 52; New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
ACT New Zealand 7.
Benson-Pope David: National Library of New Zealand (Te Puna MAtauranga o Aotearoa) Bill — Second Reading 
Benson-Pope David: National Library of New Zealand (Te Puna MAtauranga o Aotearoa) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:607;Page:4736] 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (NZ Labour—Dunedin South) 
: 
 I am pleased to rise to speak very briefly in support of this bill and to congratulate my colleague Minister Hobbs on her stewardship of the legislation. I acknowledge also the work done by other colleagues right across the political divide—some of which I have seen while serving on the select committee. 
One of the most interesting challenges that has been met is the sensible way that this pathway forward copes with the extraordinary challenges presented in terms of the capture of electronic material in particular. That issue has been very sensitively and pragmatically handled and I commend the bill to the House.
Worth Richard: Government Communications Security Bureau Bill — In Committee 
Worth Richard: Government Communications Security Bureau Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:607;Page:4368] 
RICHARD WORTH (NZ National—Epsom) 
: 
 It is a privilege to speak on this bill in the Committee stage and to follow the previous speaker who decided that he would not confine himself to what is a very narrow debate on the title. He instead offered his wide-ranging perspectives on issues of Government security. In the short time that I have available in this debate I intend to focus on exactly the title. It seems to me that in any discussion about a title one must be satisfied on two points. The first point is that the title is legally accurate and the second point is that the title factually captures the content of the bill. I do not have an alternative title to suggest to the Committee. However it is fair to say that some criticism could be directed at this title. If one looks at the contents of the bill it can be seen that there are really two fundamental thrusts to it. There are of course four parts but if one looks at the content of the legislation one sees that essentially it is concerned with the organisation the objectives and the functions of the bureau and that it sets up in that context a department of State. So it could be argued that the bill could be called the “Government Communications Security Bureau Establishment Bill”—that being a core part of this legislation. But that of course is only a part of it. That is really what Part 2 is concerned about. 
Part 3 contains provisions that I guess the previous speaker would describe as draconian. Certainly he would find them in his world ideologically offensive. Part 3 is concerned with the interception of communications and provides for warrants and computer access authorisation. There might be a case for the bill being called the “Government Communications Security Bureau Interception of Communications Bill”. 
For those students who look at these issues and seek to access material on a quick and ready basis such a title would certainly provide a key for that approach to the legislation. If one looks at the first test I suggested which is concerned with the lawfulness of the title—the extent to which it is legally accurate—one cannot really quibble with this title. However in a factual setting as to whether the title is all-encompassing some criticism can be levelled. I hope the Minister will take a call and perhaps suggest what for him would be a more harmonious alternative. My sense of it is that he has not considered this issue at all. He has not even considered it. That is a pity when time has been set aside by Parliament for a focus to be offered on this particular issue—that is the title of the bill. That is all I wish to say in these opening comments on what will clearly be an extended Committee stage.
Power Simon: New Zealand Council of Law Reporting Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Power Simon: New Zealand Council of Law Reporting Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:20633] 
SIMON POWER (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Initially the Hon Phil Goff indicated that the select committee was the Justice and Electoral Committee; then he changed his mind and corrected the motion to make sure it was the Government Administration Committee. I seek clarification from you as to how that process works. Would the Minister of Justice have to seek leave of the House to change the committee that the bill is to go to given that he indicated initially that it was to go to the Justice and Electoral Committee? Or do we simply change the select committee based on the Minister’s instruction? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Minister Goff was in error but he had not finished putting his motion. You may have noticed that I tried to clarify a matter with him which indeed probably assisted him. We have arrived at the correct position where he has put a motion. 
Bill referred to the Government Administration Committee.referred to Government Administration Committee
Vote: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8158] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; Green Party 9. 
Noes 60 
Labour 52; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 103 in the name of Dr Lynda Scott to clause 134(1)(f) be agreed to.
Gallagher Martin: Parole (Extended Supervision) and Sentencing Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Gallagher Martin: Parole (Extended Supervision) and Sentencing Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:618;Page:14164] 
MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Vote: Resource Management and Electricity Legislation Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Resource Management and Electricity Legislation Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:627;Page:22324] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 51; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 55 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 5; Green Party 9; Maori Party 1. 
Part 2 agreed to.
Pettis Jill: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Reading 
Pettis Jill: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Reading 
[Volume:608;Page:5642] 
JILL PETTIS (NZ Labour—Whanganui) 
: 
 I am pleased to speak in support of this bill. It is a good bill and I wish it a speedy passage through the House.
McCully Murray: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Question Time Questions to Members 
McCully Murray: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Question Time Questions to Members 
[Volume:607;Page:4502] 
3.  
Hon MURRAY MCCULLY (NZ National—East Coast Bays) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Privileges Committee 
: On how many occasions since 1 February 2002 has the Privileges Committee met to consider the question of privilege in relation to information given by New Zealand Post Limited to the Finance and Expenditure Committee? 
Hon MATT ROBSON (Chairperson of the Privileges Committee) 
: 
 The Privileges Committee has considered the question of privilege referred to it on 28 February 2002 in relation to information given by New Zealand Post Ltd to the Finance and Expenditure Committee during four meetings since 1 February 2003 and a further meeting will give consideration to that on 10 April. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: Will the chairman of the committee confirm that the matter of privilege that has been referred to the Privileges Committee was first raised by me with Mr Speaker on 11 February 2002 and does the committee have anything to report to the House in relation to any reasons that this matter has been delayed for so long—over 1 year and 1 month? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The second part of the question is in order. 
Hon MATT ROBSON 
: As the new chair of that committee I would hope that such a matter could be advanced as expeditiously as possible but I point out that the matters are very serious. As the chair I would like to congratulate the member on raising a number of serious issues that have come out. The correspondence on this matter between the committee and those involved has taken some time. The present constituted committee of this Parliament has given quite some consideration to the issues and there are still some more to consider.
Jones Dail: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Jones Dail: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:606;Page:3352] 
11.  
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister for ACC 
: What is the cost to ACC of the 17529 doctor visits resulting from dog bites for the year to last November 2002 and what action does she intend to take to reduce both the cost and the physical injuries being sustained by New Zealanders as a result of a lack of control by dog owners? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Commerce) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister for ACC 
: The basis of the question is incorrect as the member has confused claims for treatment with doctors’ visits. I have not been able to obtain end-of-November statistics to match those he is using. For the year ended June 2002 there were 7978 dog-bite claims and their total cost including medical treatment weekly compensation if any rehabilitation and other assistance was $669000. In respect of the second part of the question I endorse the actions being proposed by my colleague the Hon Chris Carter. 
Dail Jones 
: Does the Accident Compensation Corporation have any plans to take action to ensure that dogs are put under control and that funds are made available—perhaps to local authorities through the various provisions of the corporation’s legislation—to ensure that dog control officers and the like have adequate funds to catch dogs on the loose thereby reducing the cost to the corporation and also protecting the citizens of New Zealand? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: The Accident Compensation Corporation is not funded for that purpose. We have increased fourfold the amount of money that is being put into injury prevention strategies but funding local councils through the corporation is not an appropriate use of the money. 
Luamanuvao Winnie Laban 
: What action is the Accident Compensation Corporation taking to reduce both the cost and incidence of injuries being sustained overall by New Zealanders? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Since the introduction of the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Act in 2001 the Accident Compensation Corporation has placed a strong emphasis on injury prevention and now has numerous prevention programmes in place which are already showing very positive results.  
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: Why has the Accident Compensation Corporation not put any focus on preventing dog attacks given the large number of yearly claims; and why is dog control not even mentioned in the August 2002 edition of  
Think Safe 
 which is designed to prevent accidents in New Zealand? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: The $669000 paid for treatment costs associated with dog-related injuries compares with over $1.4 billion paid out totally in injury claims by the Accident Compensation Corporation. It actually represents less than 1 percent of the total number of claims and payouts under the corporation.
Smith Lockwood: Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Smith Lockwood: Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:615;Page:11259] 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. It would assist with the Committee’s debate of this bill if you could give us guidance as to what this particular debate is about. Prior to the dinner adjournment my good colleague Dr Wayne Mapp in addressing clause 3 referred to the amendment tabled by Mr Keith Locke that Mr Locke has just debated during the last 5 minutes but the Chair of the Committee ruled that my colleague was out of order and was not allowed to speak on that Supplementary Order Paper during the debate on clause 3. That is fine; the Chair ruled in that way. However you appear to have just allowed Mr Locke to spend the last 5 minutes commending his new clause 3A as part of the debate on clause 3. I think you can see the difficulty we are getting into. Either we are meant to debate Mr Locke’s rather strange new clause 3A or we are not. At the moment we have had two different rulings because the previous Chair got quite forthright with my colleague Dr Mapp and threatened to terminate his speech. If you could give us some guidance I would appreciate that.
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:608;Page:5912] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (NZ National—Ilam) 
: 
 Given the difficulties the House had with question No. 4 I feel obliged to appeal to the better judgment of Government members and seek leave for this question to be held over to the next day on which the Minister of Energy will be able to answer it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? Please ask the question.
Worth Richard: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Procedure Referral to Health Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled  Speaker Recalled In Committee Procedure 
Worth Richard: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Procedure Referral to Health Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled  Speaker Recalled In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:613;Page:10005] 
RICHARD WORTH (National—Epsom) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. This is a fresh point of order that is utterly unrelated to what has gone before and it arises out of the Speaker’s ruling with particular reference to Standing Order 51. It is a complex point and I will pause while you look for the Standing Order.
Vote: Supplementary Estimates — Imprest Supply Debate 
Vote: Supplementary Estimates — Imprest Supply Debate 
[Volume:626;Page:21300] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Imprest Supply (First for 2005/06) Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 51; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; Maori Party 1. 
Abstentions 8 
Green Party 8. 
Bill read a second time.
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:615;Page:11433] 
11.  
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Immigration 
: Does he consider it as part of his immigration portfolio responsibilities that he must make every endeavour to ensure the health of the New Zealand population is not endangered through refugees and asylum seekers wishing to enter New Zealand carrying seriously infectious diseases? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 Yes I do. For this reason the Government is significantly strengthening health-screening policies for people wishing to enter New Zealand including refugees. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Is the Minister concerned about the latest statistics which illustrate a shocking rise in HIV cases in New Zealand given that more than two-thirds of those diagnosed in New Zealand with heterosexually acquired AIDS were of an ethnicity other than European Maori or Pacific Islander; and how is that fair on New Zealand taxpayers when the Government proposes to do nothing about compulsory screening until the end of 2004? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: I am aware of some of the figures the member has mentioned and it is important that we do something about that—which is why we are strengthening the policy. I am also aware though that the most at-risk group described in the comments the member was making is that of European men. The critical thing is that we get on and toughen up the screening. By the end of this year we will have the toughest screening regime that any Government has had in New Zealand. 
Dianne Yates 
: What specific changes to immigration health policy have been or are being implemented by this Government? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: Currently asylum seekers and other entrants to New Zealand on a temporary basis for 24 months or longer are required to complete a full medical test. By the end of the year the full test will be required at the 12-month mark. People recognised as refugees and other residency applicants are already tested for a significant number of conditions including TB. By December 2004 testing will be extended to cover HIV-AIDs and AIDS-related conditions. These changes constitute the most significant revamp of immigration health policy for many years.
Wilson Margaret: Resignations — Rt Hon Jonathan Hunt NZ Labour 
Wilson Margaret: Resignations — Rt Hon Jonathan Hunt NZ Labour 
[Volume:624;Page:19547] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I wish to advise the House that I have received a letter from the Rt Hon Jonathan Hunt resigning his seat in the House with effect on 31 March 2005.
Business Statement 
Business Statement 
[Volume:606;Page:3421] 
Thursday 13 February 2003 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Business Statement 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week it is intended that the House will concentrate on the first readings of bills on the Order Paper. It is also intended that if the debate on the Prime Minister’s statement is not finished today then following its conclusion next Tuesday the first item of business will be to refer the Local Government Law Reform Bill (No 2) back to the Local Government and Environment Committee or pending discussions with other parties the Government Administration Committee. First readings are likely to be done in the order in which they are listed on today’s Order Paper. Wednesday of course is a members’ day. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (NZ National—Ilam) 
: 
 I thank the Leader of the House for that indication. I notice that the Government has reacted very very quickly to public pressure on the Dog Bill as it is going to be called. I am wondering whether we might see similar action—that the transport bill that deals with illegal street racing known as the “Boy Racer Bill” might also be brought forward on the Order Paper so that that pressure group can be satisfied as well. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 No. I hope of course that those boy racers will not be grown up by the time we do get the bill through. 
BRIAN CONNELL (NZ National—Rakaia) 
: 
 I seek the leave of the House at the conclusion of the Prime Minister’s debate to have the Land Transport (Street and Illegal Drag Racing) Amendment Bill—that is the “Boy Racer Bill”—moved to become the second item of business after the Dog Bill. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I heard general murmuring. Can you identify who said no? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will please be seated. There was objection. A lot of members heard it. That is the end of the matter.
Vote: Children's Commissioner Bill — Third Reading 
Vote: Children's Commissioner Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:613;Page:10123] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Children's Commissioner Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 106 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 7. 
Noes 8 
ACT New Zealand 7; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Bill read a third time.
Benson-Pope David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Benson-Pope David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:611;Page:8197] 
10.  
DAVID BENSON-POPE (NZ Labour—Dunedin South) 
 to the  
Minister of Fisheries 
: What is the Government doing to protect seabirds from incidental catch by fishing vessels? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Fisheries) 
: 
 Recently the Minister of Conservation and I released for public consultation a draft plan of action to reduce seabird deaths caused by fishing. This plan supports voluntary measures being taken by the fishing industry to reduce seabird deaths but provides for the Government to introduce mandatory measures if the voluntary approach fails. 
David Benson-Pope 
: Could the Minister detail the specific measures that will be introduced under this plan and when they will take effect? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The plan proposes that codes of practice for managing seabird by-catch in key fisheries are developed by mid-2004. These codes will specify fishing practices limits on seabird deaths public awareness and compliance measures and penalties for non-compliance.
Hughes Darren: Land Transport (Unauthorised Street and Drag Racing) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Hughes Darren: Land Transport (Unauthorised Street and Drag Racing) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:607;Page:4586] 
DARREN HUGHES (NZ Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No and before I call the next member I say to members on the cross benches that it is a longstanding convention in the House that they do not interject across the cross benches because it muffles the microphone.