edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Laban Luamanuvao Winnie: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Laban Luamanuvao Winnie: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:620;Page:15460] 
9.  
LUAMANUVAO WINNIE LABAN (Labour—Mana) 
 to the  
Minister for Trade Negotiations 
: What progress was made in trade negotiations from last weekend’s meeting in Jakarta? 
Hon JIM SUTTON (Minister for Trade Negotiations) 
: 
 Significant progress has been made. ASEAN Ministers along with their Australian and New Zealand counterparts have endorsed a recommendation that their leaders begin negotiations on a trade agreement linking ASEAN and CER. In addition Malaysia and New Zealand have agreed to begin studies to explore whether to have a bilateral trade agreement. 
Luamanuvao Winnie Laban 
: Are these negotiations consistent with New Zealand’s policy of supporting a comprehensive World Trade Organization arrangement? 
Hon JIM SUTTON 
: Certainly. The Government’s top trade priority is the World Trade Organization’s Doha development agenda. However we are also working on plan B—a network of comprehensive regional plurilateral and bilateral trade agreements to ensure that our exporters have the market access they need for New Zealand as a whole to prosper. 
Rod Donald 
: Does the Minister agree that trade sanctions played a vital role in defeating apartheid in South Africa; if so why does his Government want to give priority to negotiating a preferential trade deal with Burma—a country ruled by an oppressive undemocratic regime which according to Amnesty International frequently violates the human rights of ethnic minorities has locked up over 1300 political prisoners and exploits forced labour? 
Hon JIM SUTTON 
: I will answer the first question first. I believe that the sporting boycott of the Springboks which I regret to say was not supported by all members of this House had more effect on the South African authorities at the time. In answer to the second question active engagement between nations and peoples encourages peaceful development democracy and human rights. By refusing to trade with people we only thrust them into deeper poverty. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: Can the Minister explain why following the decision of the ASEAN States to seek a trade agreement with Australia and New Zealand and to complete those negotiations within 3 years and the concurrent decision of the ASEAN States at the weekend to conclude a free-trade agreement with China by 2010 New Zealand now needs separately to conclude a free-trade agreement with China? 
Hon JIM SUTTON 
: The rules of origin which are a feature of every bilateral and plurilateral trade agreement would mean that we cannot simply take advantage of other countries’ bilateral agreements with third parties and thereby escape the need to negotiate trade agreements of our own.
Stewart Barbara: War Pensions Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
Stewart Barbara: War Pensions Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
[Volume:607;Page:4527] 
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First definitely supports this bill. It has a really good bill. The title reflects the content of the bill and we will be supporting the bill through the House. 
Clause 1 agreed to.
Vote: Civil Union Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Civil Union Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:622;Page:17563] 
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) 
Brash(P) 
Gudgeon(P) 
Power(P) 
Wang(P) 
Brown (P) 
Heatley(P) 
Prebble(P) 
Williamson(P) 
Carter D (P) 
Hutchison(P) 
Roy  
Woolerton(P) 
Carter J (P) 
Jones 
Ryall(P) 
Worth(P) 
Catchpole(P) 
Key(P) 
Scott(P) 
Coddington(P) 
Mapp(P) 
Shirley(P) 
Collins(P) 
McNair (P) 
Smith L (P) 
Connell(P) 
Newman(P) 
Smith M (P) 
Copeland(P) 
Ogilvy(P) 
Smith N (P) 
Dunne(P) 
Paraone(P) 
Stewart  
Teller: 
Eckhoff(P) 
Perry(P) 
te Heuheu(P) 
Baldock  
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.
English Bill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
English Bill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:612;Page:8965] 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 I want to address two new points that have been made by Dr Cullen and Mr Prebble. I do not believe that Mr Prebble is correct. I recall the Rau Williams case very well. The political problem was precisely that Rau Williams would not give the Government permission to release information that would paint a full picture of his medical situation. The Minister—who was as I recall either Mrs Shipley or myself—had to sit and take the political pressure for some months precisely because the family would not allow the release of it. That is the first point. 
My second point is that the Privacy Commissioner has referred to relevant authorities having the capacity to release information. Ms Clark is not a relevant authority. She may regard herself as an authority on everything but she is not a relevant health authority at all. She is just a Prime Minister trying to get a cheap shot away in the House. In that sense she is not allowed to release personal identified medical information of a confidential nature. Mr Speaker if you are going to stand back and allow that to be the new standard in the House then you can expect to see the standard of debate around health deteriorate quite rapidly.
Collins Judith: Auckland War Memorial Museum Site Empowering Bill — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Collins Judith: Auckland War Memorial Museum Site Empowering Bill — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:611;Page:8384] 
JUDITH COLLINS (NZ National—Clevedon) 
: 
 Following on from the comments of the Hon Judith Tizard I must say that it was a great experience to be part of the Government Administration Committee in relation to the bill. I take the opportunity to thank the chair of the committee Dianne Yates for the great job she did. I thank my colleague Pansy Wong who was as enthusiastic as myself in relation to this matter and David Cunliffe was also there. 
Some members might wonder why we are taking so long this evening to work through the bill. I note that the member for Whanganui Jill Pettis does not share the same passion for the bill and the work of the museum as those of us who have spoken this evening—I forgot to mention the passion that the Hon Judith Tizard clearly feels for this particular site. The reason we are not rushing this bill through tonight with a quick yes/no vote is that this is an important bill for an important site. Not only is this museum an icon but it is a war memorial. I have already said it but I will say it again: it is a war memorial and therefore it is extremely important that we give it its due. This is the anniversary of the start of World War II and as the museum is a war memorial to the fallen from the Auckland region in World War II it is even more important this evening that we pay our respects to those people—to those men and women who served our country so that we can enjoy democracy to the extent we do today. To give it anything less than its due would be disrespectful and that is important. 
I have so enjoyed the contributions from the speakers tonight. In particular Judith Tizard Dianne Yates Pansy Wong Richard Worth Simon Power Dail Jones Bernie Ogilvy and also Taito Phillip Field have contributed well and given sterling performances. That is what this museum deserves because it is a wonderful icon. It is something we can show respect for forgetting all our political differences across the House. We can be absolutely proud that this bill is going through the House with the support of all the parties. That is wonderful and it is a moment to be proud of. I particularly commend this bill to the House and to the membership.
Gallagher Martin: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Gallagher Martin: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:625;Page:20053] 
10.  
MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: What increase if any has there been in the number of alleged offenders remanded in custody since the passage of the Bail Act 2000? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 The most recent forecast of the prison population confirmed that prior to the passage of the Bail Act there had been a decreasing trend in the proportion of defendants remanded in custody. In the period since the passage of the Act that trend has reversed. The forecast shows that in the last 2 years there has been a 31 percent increase in the male remand population. Bail is now being denied to more than 1000 more offenders every year who are likely to reoffend while on bail and community safety has been increased as a result. 
Martin Gallagher 
: What changes were made by the Bail Act to help ensure that bail was not granted to those who were likely to reoffend? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: This Government substantially rewrote the Bail Bill that was introduced to the House by Tony Ryall in 1999 because that bill frankly was weak and ineffectual. The Government toughened the law to ensure that defendants with a history of repeat offending including burglars and property offenders—whom the previous National Government was apparently not concerned about—now face a reverse onus meaning that they have to persuade the courts that bail is justified rather than the onus falling on the police to prove that it should not be.
Hide Rodney: Urgent Debates — Member for TamakiMakaurau—Standing Down as Minister 
Hide Rodney: Urgent Debates — Member for TamakiMakaurau—Standing Down as Minister 
[Volume:621;Page:16239] 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I seek the leave of the House to table a copy of the document that the Prime Minister said she had seen which is the defence of John Tamihere in the District Court at Howick in Auckland. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Peters Winston: Speaker’s Rulings — Privileges of the House and Speaker’s Actions 
Peters Winston: Speaker’s Rulings — Privileges of the House and Speaker’s Actions 
[Volume:611;Page:8656] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I want to respond to Mr Burton’s allegations that somehow I am behaving irresponsibly in this matter. You know and the House knows full well that I did not take the side of others in respect of Harry Duynhoven or for that matter of Mr Ardern. I defended the Speaker’s office. But this sort of information is something totally different and last week when Mr English and Mr Prebble raised this matter no such spurious contentious arguments were put up about their right to do so. Why is it being raised today? That is my evidence about the precedent for this matter. But I come back to my point: if the police said that and if they have behaved thus as I have set out in the facts then this Parliament and your office have been massively abused. But if in fact they were reciting the facts then the very nature of this constitutional Government the institution of the Speaker and Parliament and the separation of powers have been totally breached. That is why it is a severe and important matter. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I said I would consider the matter and come back to the House on it.
Vote: Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:618;Page:14040] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 3 be agreed to. 
Ayes 83 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 36 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Part 3 agreed to.
Tisch Lindsay: Animal Welfare (Restriction on Docking of Dogs' Tails) Bill — Procedure First Reading 
Tisch Lindsay: Animal Welfare (Restriction on Docking of Dogs' Tails) Bill — Procedure First Reading 
[Volume:621;Page:16367] 
LINDSAY TISCH (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The member Mr Peters has just asked that the names be divulged. We had a discussion earlier on the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill that we have just finished debating where it was agreed that a party may take to the Standing Orders Committee the situation that we now find ourselves in in this debate about the disclosure of names. As the Standing Orders stand at the moment under Standing Order 144(1)(b) there is no obligation on members in the House to disclose the names. However as the senior Opposition whip said if any member wanted to ring and find out who voted for whom and in which way then we would be happy to disclose that. But there is no obligation on us under that Standing Order to disclose the names in the House. That was the position we made very clear and National is comfortable to disclose the names if someone wants to ring. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Members are well versed in the Standing Orders. Standing Order 84(3) states that points of order are to be heard in silence. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: If it is the intention of Mr Peters to have the votes disclosed in the House then that is a different matter. I seek clarification from him as to whether that is what he is asking. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I want to rule on this.
Donnelly Brian: Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Donnelly Brian: Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:627;Page:22089] 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
: 
 Can I just clarify that the leave asked for by Stephen Franks was an open blanket one whereas I am asking whether Mr Franks accepts that it is just at the end.
Vote: Smoke-free Environments (Exemptions) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Smoke-free Environments (Exemptions) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:627;Page:22086] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Smoke-free Environments (Exemptions) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 52 
New Zealand National 23; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; United Future 7. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 3; Green Party 9; Maori Party 1. 
Motion not agreed to.
Sittings of the House 
Sittings of the House 
[Volume:606;Page:3631] 
Sittings of the House 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Social Services and Employment) 
 on behalf of the 
 Leader of the House 
: I seek leave for the House at its rising on Wednesday 26 February to adjourn until the ringing of the bell on Thursday 27 February. This is to allow for the luncheon for the European Parliament delegation. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There is not.
Dalziel Lianne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Dalziel Lianne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:611;Page:8329] 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Commerce) 
: 
 I apologise for not doing this earlier. I seek the leave of the House to table the joint statement on closer economic relations by the closer economic relations 20th anniversary ministerial forum and associated communiqués as well as the Australia - New Zealand Business Council report  
Stepping Towards a Borderless Market? 
. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table those documents. Is there any objection? There is.
Turei Metiria: Immigration Amendment Bill — Instructions to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Turei Metiria: Immigration Amendment Bill — Instructions to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8261] 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 The Greens will not be supporting this Supplementary Order Paper which proposes to allow for the ongoing detention of migrants who have been served with a removal order and subsequently detained. In the specific case that has driven this Supplementary Order Paper Mr Mohebbi has been denied refugee status and has been served with a removal order and detained in prison. He clearly wants to remain in New Zealand and is refusing to do anything or take any action to facilitate his removal. The circumstances that have led to this situation with Mr Mohebbi appear to be specific to the requirement of the Iranian Embassy. It appears from the High Court judgment of 7 August that this situation is unique but that it has exposed a lacuna in the law. As a result this Supplementary Order Paper has been proposed by the Government to remedy the situation. However the Supplementary Order Paper makes a significant change to the law that will deprive people of their rights and allow for unlimited ongoing detention. It also appears to breach the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and possibly the Human Rights Act and other international conventions for the protection of migrants. 
The Greens are not prepared to support a Supplementary Order Paper that has these effects without allowing for intense public scrutiny through the select committee process and advice from experts in the area. We consider this to be an abuse of the process of this House. We have already had immigration legislation passed under urgency in this House that deprived people of their rights; we did not support that legislation either. This change should go to a select committee and not be passed into law without proper consideration.
Hartley Ann: Overseas Investment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Hartley Ann: Overseas Investment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:21581] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: No that is not correct. It is a longstanding practice that a member may sign amendments on behalf of another member if he or she has that member’s permission. That is the ruling.
Peters Winston: General Debates 
Peters Winston: General Debates 
[Volume:611;Page:8540] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 This is a very important day for Parliament because all manner of members have had a chance to take part in the debate. I think we have spent enough time on this matter. More important I point out that having to handle Mr Mallard is like taking candy from a baby and I have never protested about it in the whole time that I have been in Parliament. So why should anybody else?
Vote: New Zealand Trade and Enterprise Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Vote: New Zealand Trade and Enterprise Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6285] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Noes 69 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit subclause (1) and substitute the following new subclause: 
(1)The purpose of this Act is to amalgamate Industry New Zealand and Trade New Zealand.
Hughes Darren: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee Third Reading 
Hughes Darren: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:21653] 
DARREN HUGHES (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Vote: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4) — Second Reading 
Vote: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4) — Second Reading 
[Volume:618;Page:14494] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments recommended by the Primary Production Committee by majority be agreed to. 
Ayes 106 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 23; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Question agreed to.
Newman Muriel: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Newman Muriel: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:614;Page:10373] 
2.  
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN (ACT) 
 to  
Steve Chadwick (Member in charge of Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill) 
: If the Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill is enacted will it come into force immediately; if not why not? 
STEVE CHADWICK (Member in charge of Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill): 
 Different provisions have different commencement dates in this bill. The prohibitions on the supply of tobacco products the sale and supply of toy cigarettes and the sale of herbal smoking products to under 18-year-olds will come into effect immediately after the royal assent. Other provisions will come into force at different times up until February 2005. 
Dr Muriel Newman 
: Does the member believe the claims made by the Ministry of Health that second-hand smoke inhalation kills 388 people each year; if so how on earth can she justify delaying the enactment of that part of the bill for 1 year knowing that by doing so she will be condemning 388 people to death? 
STEVE CHADWICK 
: Evidence supplied to the select committee during the hearings of this bill certainly gave us that evidence in respect of 388 deaths per year.
Hughes Darren: Amended Answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 9 to Minister 
Hughes Darren: Amended Answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 9 to Minister 
[Volume:624;Page:19544] 
DARREN HUGHES (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 The Standing Orders require the Minister to clarify the answer but it is not an opportunity for a second question time. The Minister has come in and stated his case and that is where the matter lies.
Cullen Michael: Business of the House 
Cullen Michael: Business of the House 
[Volume:626;Page:21123] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek leave for two additional members’ bills to be drawn in the ballot for members’ bills to be held tomorrow. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There is not.
Vote: Corrections Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Vote: Corrections Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:617;Page:13162] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 52 
New Zealand National 24; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 6; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 1 be agreed to: 
to omit the words “This Act is the Corrections Act 2002” and substitute the words “This Act is the Corrections (Rights and Entitlements for Prisoners and Other Matters) Act”.
Ririnui Mita: Maori Television Service Bill — In Committee 
Ririnui Mita: Maori Television Service Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:607;Page:5068] 
MITA RIRINUI (NZ Labour—Waiariki) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Copeland Gordon: Voting — Correction 
Copeland Gordon: Voting — Correction 
[Volume:609;Page:6561] 
GORDON COPELAND (Whip—United Future) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek leave to alter three United Future votes that were taken in the Committee of the whole House yesterday on the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to adjust votes from the Committee of the whole House. In actual fact I think it makes little difference to the outcome. It is just that one vote was cast for the Ayes and should have been cast for the Noes. Is there any objection to that? Please read the three out. 
GORDON COPELAND 
: On the question that Part 2 stand part United Future voted for the Ayes. The vote should have been for the Noes. The result was announced as: Ayes 69 Noes 47. The result would now be: Ayes 61 Noes 55. On the question that Part 3 stand part United Future voted for the Ayes. The vote should have been for the Noes. The result was announced as: Ayes 69 Noes 44. The result would now be: Ayes 61 Noes 52. On the question that the schedule stand part United Future voted for the Ayes. The vote should have been for the Noes. The result was announced as: Ayes 69 Noes 44. The result would now be: Ayes 61 Noes 52. I would like to apologise to the House for the inconvenience. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Journals will be adjusted accordingly. Is there any objection to the question of leave? There is not.
Barker Rick: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Barker Rick: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:608;Page:5836] 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister for Courts) 
: 
 I seek leave to table a letter dated 14 May under the signature of Dail Jones and addressed to the Hon Phil Goff concerning a Statutes Amendment Bill in which he says: “We do not support your suggestion of a remand on bail.” which confirms my earlier statement. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. 
Dail Jones 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I invite him to read it all— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Just a moment. Is there any objection?
Peck Mark: Crimes Amendment Bill (No 6) — In Committee Third Reading 
Peck Mark: Crimes Amendment Bill (No 6) — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:7103] 
MARK PECK (NZ Labour—Invercargill) 
: 
 Why let the facts get in the way of a good story right? That is the best thing that can be said about that speech. 
Hon Paul Swain 
: What about 3.2 percent? 
MARK PECK 
: Or 3.2 percent and things like that. This bill is intended to modernise and update penalties for property offences. I notice that the leader and the deputy leader of the Opposition—who is colloquially known as “Mr Bouncer”—were sitting in the back row of the Chamber worrying about their own property offences that are going on at this particular point in time. I hope the numbers stack up for them because not many other people in this House will. I support the bill.
Franks Stephen: Land Transport (Unauthorised Street and Drag Racing) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Franks Stephen: Land Transport (Unauthorised Street and Drag Racing) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:607;Page:4589] 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT NZ) 
: 
 As a member of now 4 years’ standing I want to endorse that concern because I need guidance on this. We have now had a warning from you in the Chair as to the relevance of debates on the schedule in terms that imply that in some way we were discursive repetitive or off the point.
Carter David: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
Carter David: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:15638] 
Hon DAVID CARTER (National) 
: 
 I want the Minister to answer the questions that were asked by the Hon Bill English. The Hon Bill English pointed out that in an earlier part of the legislation we have ratified the constitution of iwi and now the proposal in Part 7 is that the Maori Land Court can actually change those constitutions. There may be a very logical explanation for that and we have just had via a point of order evidence that the officials are available to help the Minister answer the questions. But the Minister has decided that the officials should stay out of the Chamber and the Minister has also decided that he has no intention at all of answering the questions that have been raised.
Hunt Jonathan: Points of Order — Civil Aviation Authority—Surveillance 
Hunt Jonathan: Points of Order — Civil Aviation Authority—Surveillance 
[Volume:619;Page:14513] 
Last Thursday the chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority Rodger Fisher came to see me. He had prepared a report which is dated 16 June and is from the authority’s legal services group. In it the group accepts that the authority in the year 2002 used taxpayer-supplied scanning equipment to tap private citizens’ phones and to tape conversations. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: So far we have not had a point of order. I want to know what the point of order is. There is some interesting material that I am listening to with considerable interest but it is not a point of order. What is the point? 
RODNEY HIDE 
: I am almost there. This report dated 16 June accepted that as part of a covert surveillance private phone calls were scanned listened into and recorded. Of course that is an offence. New Zealanders would be horrified to know that civil servants are listening into their phone calls. But what is horrifying—and Mr Speaker this is where I am asking you to provide some guidance to this House—is that the Minister and his chief executive have consistently denied it and indeed have provided answers to this House and to the select committee that are clearly wrong. They have known that because they have had a report prepared by their own chairman since 16 June. I would have thought they would come down to this House to provide a correction. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If the Minister considers he has given wrong information he must correct it but it is up to the Minister not me to judge that.
Vote: Maori Television Service (Te Aratuku Whakaata Irirangi Maori) Bill — Third Reading 
Vote: Maori Television Service (Te Aratuku Whakaata Irirangi Maori) Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:608;Page:5358] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Maori Television Service (Te Aratuku Whakaata Irirangi Maori) Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 64 
Noes 52 
Bill read a third time. 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; Progressive 2; Other: Donna Awatere Huata. 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 8.
Pillay Lynne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Pillay Lynne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:616;Page:11826] 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What steps is he taking to ensure that all children develop basic literacy skills? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 Despite the fact that New Zealand’s 15-year-olds rate third in the OECD in literacy I am not satisfied with the performance of students at the bottom end. Today I announced that primary and intermediate schools will be taking part in targeted programmes aimed at lifting the literacy skills of around 35000 students. We are almost doubling the number of secondary schools involved in literacy development projects involving an additional 16000 secondary students. The Government is now investing around $43 million each year in targeted literacy programmes. It is a clear commitment that this Government has made to what is a top priority. 
Lynne Pillay 
: How does this approach to literacy development differ from previous approaches? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: This Government is committed to an education system that works for all children. We have targeted our investment in areas like literacy and numeracy based on comprehensive research and evaluation. This approach differs from the haphazard approach of the previous Government which included halving operational funding for resource teachers of reading cutting reading recovery in many areas and a basic belief on the part of the previous Government that brown children could not learn to read. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: How can he claim any real commitment to addressing New Zealand’s serious literacy problem when in 1999 he dumped nationally consistent assessments in literacy abandoned clear literacy goals and that the $43 million he boasts of amounts to 0.5 percent of his budget; and is it not true that today’s announcement is just a reaction to the fact that Dr Don Brash has made an issue of literacy and the Minister is trying to catch up? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I certainly have not read about it. What is important is that this Government has decided to introduce a testing system that works through assessment tools for teaching and learning (asTTle). The Opposition might like to recognise that the system it has modelled its approach on—that of England—was dumped last week by the Brits because it is useless. 
Bernie Ogilvy 
: Is he confident the Vision Hearing Screening Programme is operating effectively to ensure that children’s vision and hearing problems are identified early and do not impede their acquisition of basic literacy skills; if not why not? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: No because not enough people are doing that work in schools. Clearly if students have not had their eyes tested in the way they should have and cannot see blackboards and cannot read text then their literacy will not improve. It is an issue the Government is focused on.
Benson-Pope David: Television New Zealand Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Benson-Pope David: Television New Zealand Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:606;Page:3737] 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (Senior Whip—NZ Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put.
Vote: Education (Disestablishment of Early Childhood Development Board) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Education (Disestablishment of Early Childhood Development Board) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:611;Page:8569] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Education (Disestablishment of Early Childhood Development Board) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 82 
Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 35 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Bill read a first time and referred to the Education and Science Committee.
Hide Rodney: Employment Relations (Flexible Working Hours) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Hide Rodney: Employment Relations (Flexible Working Hours) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:624;Page:19717] 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am not clear on the seeking of leave but I understood that leave was sought for Mr Prebble to have his time. I can advise the House that he is on his way from his office—not on a plane as Annette King suggested which was totally out of order during a point of order. He is on his way and he is here now. I am sure that Mr Prebble will be quite happy to take his call—hard fought for that it has been—and finish the speech that he tried to give last night.
Brown Peter: Motions — Sir Edmund Hillary—50th Anniversary of Ascent of Mount Everest 
Brown Peter: Motions — Sir Edmund Hillary—50th Anniversary of Ascent of Mount Everest 
[Volume:608;Page:5815] 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 On behalf of New Zealand First I am very proud and very privileged to stand here to endorse the Prime Minister’s motion. In 1953 when the climb on Everest was being envisaged I was a young boy back in the UK. I can remember the leader of that party John Hunt coming on television and displaying the equipment that would be used for the ascent of Everest. When Ed Hillary returned I realised just how great an achievement the ascent was knowing the limitations of that equipment. If that was one great achievement probably Sir Edmund’s greatest achievement is being a man of genuine sincerity and humbleness. He is a very great New Zealander and New Zealand First endorses exactly what the Prime Minister said.
Vote: Maori Television Service Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Maori Television Service Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:607;Page:5013] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 60 
Noes 56 
Motion agreed to. 
Labour 52; Green Party 8. 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Party 8. 
The question was put that the following amendments in the name of the Hon Parekura Horomia to clause 1 be agreed to: 
to insert after the word “Service” the words “(Te Aratuku Whakaata Irirangi Maori)”; and 
to add the following new subclause : 
(2)this Act may be cited as either— 
the Maori Television Service Act 2003; or 
Te Aratuku Whakaata Irirangi Maori Act 2003. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to 
.
Pillay Lynne: General Debate 
Pillay Lynne: General Debate 
[Volume:623;Page:18493] 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
: 
 I congratulate my colleagues on their articulate and informed criticism of the National Party—the poor old National Party! However enough of this criticism; I will focus on more positive things. I am not going to stand here and criticise the National Party; I am going to talk about our Government’s outstanding achievements. I will talk about such things as the really high economic growth and the lowest crime rate in 21 years. Let us also consider our young people. There are 7000 young people in apprenticeships. We have the biggest health and education spending ever. Paid parental leave? We know we have that. And we know we have introduced 4 weeks’ holiday. No—I have changed my mind. Dr Brash knows all about changing his mind. I think I have to say something about just how bad the National Party is. 
Dr Brash’s record is absolutely appalling. There has been gaffe after gaffe—whether it be overseas whether it be at home or whether it be within his own party. What is his rule for women in the National Party? It is: “Agree with me or you will be gone by lunchtime.” I commend Pansy Wong. I think she has been so stoic. She has put up with so much. She has seen women demeaned in this country but she has managed to keep quiet. I think that takes a lot of courage. She was not gone by lunchtime. 
Let us look at the record. Georgina te Heuheu was gone and then exactly 1 year later to the day Katherine Rich was gone and Linda Scott resigned in between. Why? Because they could not agree with dumping on Maori or with dumping on women or with passing judgment on single parents or with depriving children. Who was the woman who was talented enough to replace Katherine Rich? Judith Collins was that woman. How dumb is that? Why was she chosen? She was chosen because she shares Don Brash’s vision. She vehemently opposes anything to do with women or with family values including the Ministry of Women’s Affairs. I think that it is a sad day for the National Party. It was pretty sad before but it is even more sad now.
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:21555] 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Tisch Lindsay: Speaker’s Rulings — Access to Chamber—Media Obstruction 
Tisch Lindsay: Speaker’s Rulings — Access to Chamber—Media Obstruction 
[Volume:616;Page:12484] 
LINDSAY TISCH (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I note that in your earlier comments to the House you mentioned two times: 1.45 and 7.15. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It is both times. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: In your comments just now you did not mention the 7.15 time. I am just interested to know whether we are talking about both times. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There is no evening session tomorrow. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: No but we are referring to this issue in the future are we not? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Yes we are and I will actually rule on it the day we resume. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: Yes but what I am interested in is that you are actually covering both times. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: We only suspended journalists approaching members for tomorrow originally but I will make that clear in the ruling when I eventually give it.
Robertson H V Ross: Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Bill — In Committee Procedure Third Reading 
Robertson H V Ross: Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Bill — In Committee Procedure Third Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:20989] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The two additional amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 372 in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 46 are ruled out of order because they are inconsistent with the previous decision. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 48 be agreed to: 
to omit subclause (1) and substitute the following new subclause: 
(1)The Secretary must not pay to the offender any amount of money that continues to be held in the account for the offender but surrendered to the victim a recognised authority acting for the victim or Victim Support.
Benson-Pope David: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
Benson-Pope David: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
[Volume:607;Page:4307] 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (NZ Labour—Dunedin South) 
: 
 I would have thought after all the debate since the introduction of the bill’s predecessor in 1999 and after building on improving the legislation that was introduced by the previous National administration the people who have been bleating for the last 3 years about the whereabouts of the amendment bill asking why it was not back in the House saying we have terrible delays in resource management and asking what was happening with that bill would welcome its return to the House in this form and the opportunity they now have to debate it. Instead we have this pathetic bleating from the Opposition and the extraordinary procedural obstruction that we saw at the start of the day from the man who says he wants the legislation back in the House. Well we have found a way of giving the National Party the opportunity to debate the issues and to tell us the other things that need doing. I am pleased to support this bill in its process to the select committee so the committee can check that the content of the bill matches that of its predecessor.
Vote: Aquaculture Reform Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Aquaculture Reform Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:619;Page:15127] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Aquaculture Reform Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 83 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 37 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8; Maori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Bill read a first time.
Alexander Marc: Telecommunications (Interception Capability) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Alexander Marc: Telecommunications (Interception Capability) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12283] 
MARC ALEXANDER (United Future) 
: 
 I have just a couple of quick points really in response to some of the comments from the Green spokesperson. There is confusion over a couple of things. First of all the Greens seem to suggest we are living in some sort of benign world where there is no real threat to New Zealand’s security. That is clearly not the case. We are not isolated from the international community and there has to be a means by which we allow our security services to be able to protect us and give them the technological ability to do so. The delusion that the Greens seem to be under is that we are not important enough in the world to constitute any kind of threat at all. If that is an inhibition on our future involvement in the world then that is a price I do not think anyone is willing to pay—including the people who actually died for the establishment of the freedoms we currently have. 
Meanwhile back in this universe let us talk about the threat from the internal side of things. There are criminal organisations out there accessing technology that we ought to be able to intercept when we need to. We do not want to allow ourselves to be so overly focused on the external threats—as real as they are—that we dismiss the internal threats that exist. There are gangs in this country and criminal organisations in this country that use technology so if we have the legislative means to access their communication and to disrupt their criminal activity then I say that that is the kind of legislation we need to support. 
There are a couple of things also that have been missed in Part 1 and I want to pick them up. The first is that there are safeguards. The Green spokesperson seems to be of the opinion that once this legislation is passed everybody’s communication will somehow be listened into by everybody else. That is not so. This bill is all about lawful interception and about giving the capacity for lawful interception. Before that even occurs there must be an interception warrant. In other words there is a lawful process by which interception is made possible and it can be possible only if we have the technological means to carry it out. Providing that process is what this bill does. 
It also does another very important thing. With the pace of technological improvements it future-proofs the process. It does that in a couple of important ways not least of which is that it allows network operators to choose the mechanisms by which interceptions will be practicable. So we will not have to revisit this legislation every couple of years in order to give it teeth again. We will be able to pass this legislation in the assurance that it will have ongoing ability to access the technologies required in order for those interceptions to occur.
Yates Dianne: Gambling Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Yates Dianne: Gambling Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8490] 
DIANNE YATES (NZ Labour—Hamilton East) 
: 
 Part 3 abolishes the Casino Control Authority and establishes the Gambling Commission. Two subparts of Part 3 are major—one deals with the Gambling Commission and the other with the Lotteries Commission. Part 3 has a large number of clauses but they are fairly much contained within those two issues. 
The issue around the Gambling Commission which was discussed at the Government Administration Committee was the level of its independence from the ministry. There were a number of submissions on that matter which was discussed fully. In a majority report the select committee reported back that it felt the commission did have sufficient independence and would be able to do the job adequately. 
With regard to the Lotteries Commission the main item of interest at this stage is the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper. It allows for interactive gambling and as I mentioned previously that is inevitable in this modern age. It was something that the select committee discussed in considerable detail. We called the Lotteries Commission back two or three times to present to the committee. I think the Committee of the whole House will be quite pleased with the Supplementary Order Paper in that although it allows interactive gambling it also realises that it is inevitable. Also with the Internet there is far greater opportunity for people to participate internationally and therefore we need to keep what gambling money there is within this country. 
As we have seen Part 3 deals with the set-up of the Gambling Commission. It deals with the membership structures and administration of that commission. It also deals with the Lotteries Commission the Lottery Grants Board and as I said initially with the abolition of the Casino Control Authority. Those bodies are all dealt with in Part 3 of this bill.