edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Business Statement 
Business Statement 
[Volume:619;Page:14875] 
Business Statement 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week the House will go into a 1-week adjournment. When the House resumes on Tuesday 24 August priority will be given to the third reading of the Appropriation (2004/05 Estimates) Bill which combined with an Imprest Supply Bill is a 3-hour debate; the remaining stages of the Electricity and Gas Industries Bill; and the second reading of the Maori Fisheries Bill. The first Wednesday back is a members’ day. Members might also note that on Tuesday 31 August the first item of business will be the first reading of the Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I wonder whether the Leader of the House could give us some indication as to whether the Government would be prepared to extend the time that the special select committee looking at the foreshore and seabed legislation has to report back to the House and assure the House that there is no intention to have that bill reported on its due date in order that it can be rushed through the House under urgency prior to the Privy Council hearing the case in London. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 No it is not the intention to extend the time for hearings on that bill. While there seems to be a large number of submissions there also seems to be a large amount of repetition.
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
[Volume:617;Page:13129] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I will advise the Business Committee on Tuesday of my intentions. The member can take a very broad hint given the nature of the Standing Orders.
Duncan Helen: Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Duncan Helen: Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:618;Page:14031] 
HELEN DUNCAN (Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Fairbrother Russell: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Fairbrother Russell: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:6649] 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (NZ Labour—Napier) 
: 
 It is my pleasure to rise in support of this bill. Accident compensation is an outstandingly good scheme and this bill endeavours to finely balance the contribution to the scheme from those who cause the greatest cost. For that reason and that reason alone among the many others that I could identify I do support this bill.
Catchpole Brent: Crown Minerals Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Catchpole Brent: Crown Minerals Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:610;Page:7881] 
BRENT CATCHPOLE (NZ First) 
: 
 When listening to the previous speaker Pansy Wong I loved hearing the expression “technical amendment”. That sums up the way this particular Government works. Here is a bill that extinguishes people’s property rights yet it is described as just a technical amendment. That is astonishing. 
The select committee that I sat on to hear the latter part of this bill was not made aware of this technical amendment stage at all. However it was made very clear to us that Acting Chief Justice Heron had come out in favour of Glenharrow Holdings. That court case caused a flurry of activity around the Government which resulted in a press release by Harry Duynhoven dated 19 September 2002. He gave everybody until 5 p.m. on that day to put in his or her application. Up until that point the select committee was aware of just Glenharrow’s application and one other possible application. All of a sudden the panic set in and this press release came out to extinguish that one other application right on the spot and anybody else who had thought of applying for an extension of his or her rights. 
Acting Chief Justice Heron quite rightly stated that they had rights to apply under the earlier Acts—the Coal Mines Act and the Mining Act. It was also made clear in another Act—the Ngai Tahu (Pounamu Vesting) Act which had a grandfather clause that stated that the Act would not extinguish the rights to continue under the original Mining Act. The original Crown Minerals Act also had a grandfather clause that stated that people’s rights were not extinguished. However on 19 September 2002 Harry Duynhoven extinguished those rights completely. They were extinguished so that we could continue to debate this bill. 
Harry Duynhoven’s press release made this bill worthless because he extinguished people’s rights right then. It was governing by press release. There was a precedent during the Muldoon era where he governed by press release and this Government has done the same—it has extinguished the rights of people. It was set out in previous Acts that people had the rights to continue with the licences. New section 111 inserted by clause 22 now extinguishes all other rights that people may have had. It extinguishes section 111 in the original Act and replaces it with Harry Duynhoven’s press release wording which is now encapsulated in this bill in new section 111 “Right to new permits”. New section 111A also encapsulates that and states that no application under section 103D of the Mining Act for an extension of the duration of a mining privilege may be granted. That is also extinguished by Harry Duynhoven’s press release. If this Government wants to continue to govern by press release then why bother bringing bills like this to the House? 
Peter Brown 
: Don’t give it any ideas! 
BRENT CATCHPOLE 
: I had better not give the Government any ideas. It might start to do everything by press release and forget about the legislation and also the select committee process.
Vote: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Vote: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6480] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 69 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 47 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Motion agreed to.
Vote: Social Security (Long-term Residential Care) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Social Security (Long-term Residential Care) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17354] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 109 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 9 
ACT New Zealand 9. 
Amendments agreed to.
Donald Rod: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Donald Rod: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:619;Page:15164] 
12.  
ROD DONALD (Co-Leader—Green) 
 to the  
Minister for Trade Negotiations 
: In his negotiations with Thailand and China what progress has he made to achieve the commitment in the Speech from the Throne on 21 December 1999 that “legitimate issues of labour standards and environmental concerns need to be integrated better with trade agreements.”? 
Hon JIM SUTTON (Minister for Trade Negotiations) 
: 
 Negotiations are under way with Thailand on bilateral arrangements covering labour and the environment with a view to their being signed at the same time as the closer economic partnership agreement. We have not started negotiations with China but will be pursuing Government policy in this area. 
Rod Donald 
: Does the Minister agree that the China trade summit he is opening tomorrow is a gateway to more exploitation of children political prisoners and the persecuted people of Tibet given that China refuses to ratify ILO Convention 105 which would eliminate forced labour and export goods made by bonded and prison labour and his Government refuses to make ratification of that convention a condition of trade negotiations? 
Hon JIM SUTTON 
: No. 
Luamanuvao Winnie Laban 
: What are New Zealand’s goals for the trade agreement negotiations with Thailand? 
Hon JIM SUTTON 
: We expect the closer economic partnership agreement with Thailand to be a mutually beneficial agreement that will promote prosperity and raise the living standards in both countries. For New Zealand it presents an opportunity to link up with the fastest-growing economy in South-east Asia. 
Rod Donald 
: Does the Minister believe that it is purely coincidental that New Zealand’s trade balance with China has rapidly deteriorated from a surplus of $398 million in 1989 to a deficit of $1448 million in 2004 at the same time as import tariffs were progressively cut and how many more local jobs and businesses will he sacrifice so that sweatshop goods can have tariff-free access to the New Zealand market? 
Hon JIM SUTTON 
: Firstly I do not accept that there has been a blowout of the trade deficit with China. After all China contributes around half of all the students who come to New Zealand and those services’ figures are not included in the statistics quoted by the member. In addition China is a major source of tourists to New Zealand. In respect of workers we have a limited supply of workers in New Zealand. We want them involved in high-value high-wage jobs not competing on price with low-wage Asian workers as the member seems to wish. 
Rod Donald 
: I seek leave to table Statistics New Zealand figures showing the deteriorating trade balance with China. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Vote: Employment Relations Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Employment Relations Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:16184] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 9 
Green Party 8; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 109 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendment not agreed to.
Tizard Judith: Education (Export Education Levy) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Tizard Judith: Education (Export Education Levy) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:619;Page:14755] 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Minister of Consumer Affairs) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Tizard Judith: Auckland War Memorial Museum Site Empowering Bill — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Tizard Judith: Auckland War Memorial Museum Site Empowering Bill — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:611;Page:8382] 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Auckland Central) 
: 
 I rise just to answer the questions that members have asked. I thank members for their interest. 
Mr Jones asked about the mention of the foreshore in the 1924 Act. That was a local Act that covered various matters relating to rating in the Auckland area particularly local body works that empowered the Auckland City Council to contribute to the cost of a road along the foreshore of Auckland harbour and also empowered the city to subsidise the building of the museum and its maintenance. In fact the whole of that Act was repealed in 1928 and replaced by subsequent legislation. 
I assure the Committee that there are no claims of any sort over this land. In fact I think probably the area of Pukekawa and the museum which make up the Auckland Domain is probably the only uncontested area in Auckland. I am assured by the Government Administration Committee that it examined the lease carefully and the lease is indeed to be negotiated between the Auckland City Council and Auckland War Memorial Museum board. The committee is satisfied in all aspects and has reported accordingly. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Judith Tizard to Part 3 be agreed to: 
to omit the heading to Part 3 and substitute the following heading: 
Validation repeal and consequential amendment 
. 
Amendment agreed to. 
Part 3 as amended agreed to.
Points of Order — Questions for Written Answer—Replies 
Points of Order — Questions for Written Answer—Replies 
[Volume:624;Page:19221] 
Wednesday 16 March 2005 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Points of Order 
Questions for Written Answer—Replies 
HEATHER ROY (ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I bring to your attention the great difficulties that some of us are having in getting answers to written questions from the Minister of Health within the time frame of 7 days required under the Standing Orders. I now have 14 written questions for which answers are long overdue. Some of those answers relating to waiting lists—and I know that that information is available—are a mere 6 weeks overdue but some of the questions go back almost a year and despite constant correspondence between my office and that of the Minister of Health the answers are still not forthcoming. The Minister makes frequent statements about being open and transparent but in fact she is the opposite. I ask your guidance Madam Speaker as to how we can get answers to written questions that have been submitted in the proper way. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: If the member sends me a list of those questions then I will look into it immediately.
Barnett Tim: Holidays Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Barnett Tim: Holidays Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:620;Page:15983] 
TIM BARNETT (Labour—Christchurch Central) 
: 
 I think that last speech contained more heat than light and ended up with the awful threat of a National Government to take us back to the era of economic doom in the 1990s. I am proud to be part of a Government that has made this country the easiest in the world in which to set up and do business. The Holidays Amendment Bill is a short sharp bill that is designed to tidy up the unintended consequences that have arisen as a result of the application of the Holidays Act and it is excellent legislation. We are about to go to the vote on the bill and I endorse it to the House.
Worth Richard: Appointments — Ombudsman—Beverley Wakem 
Worth Richard: Appointments — Ombudsman—Beverley Wakem 
[Volume:622;Page:17662] 
RICHARD WORTH (National—Epsom) 
: 
 I would like to speak briefly on behalf of National in support of this appointment and in doing so to acknowledge the contribution that Beverley Wakem has made to date in the New Zealand business community. She is the deputy chair of the Remuneration Authority and chair of the Insurance and Savings Ombudsman’s commission. She has been widely involved in a range of community activities and I single out for special mention her position as chief executive of Radio New Zealand from 1984 until 1991. She has also been a commercial director for Wrightson Ltd and she has had positions in the area of human resources and corporate affairs. 
I would say though that we are confronting a quite unusual situation in the context of the appointment of Ombudsman because we now have three Ombudsmen who do not have legal qualifications. I would argue that a critical part of the role involves legal analysis and in particular analysis of legal material. So there is John Belgrave the Chief Ombudsman from 1 July 2003 who has a commerce background—sure he has been Secretary for Justice but law is not his mainstream activity—and there is also Mel Smith who has a BA in political science. 
There have been circumstances over the years where there have also been Ombudsmen without legal qualifications but it has been relatively rare. Now we have all three Ombudsmen without legal training. I think that is a pity and an issue that would be addressed by an incoming National Government. 
I would also say this in reinforcement of the points that I have made today. We all know that Ombudsmen are independent Officers of Parliament appointed by the Governor-General on the recommendation of this House which is what we are doing today. But they have only three functions and those three functions are substantially legally loaded: first of course to form opinions on the merits of complaints from citizens about the administrative acts and decisions of Government agencies; second to conduct reviews of decisions to decline release of official information either under the Official Information Act or the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act; and finally to provide guidance and information to employees who have either made or are considering making protected disclosure pursuant to the Protected Disclosures Act. In that context of the purpose of Ombudsmen it is not a wholly satisfactory circumstance that we are seeing no Ombudsmen in this current round who have legal qualifications. 
I do not want to detract though from the qualities that Beverley Wakem undoubtedly has and National will support the appointment.
Hunt Jonathan: Visitors — Speaker of Legislative Assembly Queensland 
Hunt Jonathan: Visitors — Speaker of Legislative Assembly Queensland 
[Volume:609;Page:6625] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing members that the Hon Ray Hollis Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of Queensland Australia accompanied by the Deputy Speaker is within the precincts of this Chamber. I am sure that members would wish that he be welcomed. 
The Hon Ray Hollis accompanied by the Deputy Speaker entered the Chamber and took a seat on the left of the Chair.
te Heuheu Georgina: Gambling Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
te Heuheu Georgina: Gambling Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8465] 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (NZ National) 
: 
 I rise to speak to clause 4 in particular and some amendments proposed in the definition section. The background to my Supplementary Order Paper is that it seeks to bring the Rotorua casino development back into contention having been unfairly ruled out by the imposition of the 1997 moratorium. In relation to the objective of the developers clause 4 seeks to insert two additions relating first to public notice and then to the Rotorua application. As I said the background to this is the ruling out of contention—unfairly in the view of the developers in my view and inNational’s view as well—an application for a casino licence that was very far advanced at the time. It was one of two that were well advanced and we were caught when the moratorium was imposed. 
This issue has been brought forward now for the same two reasons and that is the economic development of Rotorua as a tourist destination—the developers being some of the city’s big landholders in that area as well—and the issue of Parliament using its power wrongly to bar legitimate developments without any just cause in 1997. In a sense Parliament was acting unconstitutionally by barring certain developments when companies and organisations had ordered their business on the basis of certain legislation only to find that at a point in time the axe came down and they were barred. Seen in those two lights the way that the legislation was brought in in 1997 was unconstitutional and it also bars economic development and growth in what is one of New Zealand’s premier tourist destinations. 
The other current issue is that no other casinos are intended to proceed under this legislation. We have actually allowed a monopoly in New Zealand and that is to be deplored. National does not support that in any event. 
As I say subject to later amendments to the bill with the insertion in the appropriate alphabetical order of a definition of “public notice” clause 4 will take into account—if Supplementary Order Paper 109 is supported—the circulation of the intentions of Pukeroa-Oruawhata Holdings the promoter seeking a casino venue licence. It will also include the definition of “Rotorua application”. 
Since the legislation that imposed the moratorium was passed the developers have done a survey of Rotorua residents. It was done in April this year and showed that a majority of Rotorua residents would like a say on whether this development should go ahead. That is a point of difference; in other words this does not say per se that the casino should be allowed. It takes into account the fact that the local community ought to have the say in the end as to what happens in its area—particularly in the case of casinos because as we know it is a hotly contested issue. In that sense if the majority of the community is in favour that gives it a better—
Vote: Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:617;Page:13368] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment 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 32 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 4; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Bill read a first time.
Simich Clem: Christchurch City Council (Robert McDougall Gallery) Land Vesting Bill — Procedure Second Reading 
Simich Clem: Christchurch City Council (Robert McDougall Gallery) Land Vesting Bill — Procedure Second Reading 
[Volume:611;Page:8778] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The Chair will be in charge of taking the calls and I am sure the Chair will take all views into account. Leave has been sought by Tim Barnett. Is there any objection to that course being followed?
Swain Paul: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Swain Paul: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:606;Page:3643] 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Associate Minister for Economic Development) 
: 
 Further to a question yesterday where Mr Winston Peters made a request of the Minister for Economic Development I seek leave to table research into the Buy New Zealand Made scheme. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Vote: Naming and Suspension of Member 
Vote: Naming and Suspension of Member 
[Volume:609;Page:6467] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Rt Hon Winston Peters be suspended from the service of the House. 
Ayes 106 
Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 13 
New Zealand First 13. 
Question agreed to. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters withdrew from the Chamber. 
Question time resumed.
Smith Lockwood: Taxation (Annual Rates GST Trans-Tasman Imputation and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Smith Lockwood: Taxation (Annual Rates GST Trans-Tasman Imputation and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:613;Page:10099] 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I have no problem with what the member is saying—it is so ridiculous—apart from the fact that it has nothing whatsoever to do with the bill. There is nothing in Part 1 about pensions schools holidays or whatever he was rabbiting on about.
Yates Dianne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Yates Dianne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:616;Page:12001] 
9.  
DIANNE YATES (Labour—Hamilton East) 
 to the  
Associate Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage 
: How did the Government support the presentation of New Zealand works in the 2004 New Zealand International Festival of the Arts? 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Associate Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage) 
: 
 Over the past 4 years the Government has significantly increased support to Creative New Zealand Te Papa the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra and the Royal New Zealand Ballet all of which supported or presented works in the festival. Creative New Zealand specifically supported 12 productions in the festival and gives ongoing support to at least six further organisations that participated in the festival which in turn makes a huge contribution to Wellington and to New Zealand. 
Dianne Yates 
: What reports has she received on the impact of increased Government support of the arts on the New Zealand programme in the festival? 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD 
: As a result of the major funding boost to Creative New Zealand the Black Grace Dance Company has been made a full annual client of Creative New Zealand. That company tells me that the extra funding it now receives allowed its choreographer Neil Ieremia to develop more substantial work that received critical acclaim attracted the interest of international media and attracted festival bookings from agents at the festival. It has also had great reports from its attendance at the Perth International Arts Festival. So arts can be exported as well. 
Dianne Yates 
: What is the value of the New Zealand International Festival of the Arts to New Zealand? 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD 
: The financial information for this year’s festival is not yet available but in 2000 the International Festival of the Arts generated $39.7 million for the Wellington region. It also makes a huge contribution to tourism to audience development and artistic excellence. International media and festival booking agents also attend it. It is contributing a great deal to our economy.
Copeland Gordon: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Copeland Gordon: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:608;Page:5261] 
GORDON COPELAND (Whip—United Future) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. In your deliberations over the weekend I ask that you possibly weigh in the balance the urgency related to this matter. I think that Peter Dunne has acted in good faith and that there is a question to be considered about whether the delay of one more day is in terms of this petition— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No I am not going to do that. I have told Mr Prebble that I will be looking at this matter and I do regard it as important. It is one of those things that is a new point of order and something we have not struck before. I think we therefore have to deal with it on the spot.
Mark Ron: Courts and Criminal Matters Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Mark Ron: Courts and Criminal Matters Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:626;Page:21679] 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I seek the leave of the House to table another document dated 2 May 2003 entitled “Quota ticketing is a fishy business” highlighting the fact that a gentleman owed over $30000 in outstanding fines so the Government is wasting its time by chasing ordinary people. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Hartley Ann: Employment Relations Law Reform Bill — First Reading 
Hartley Ann: Employment Relations Law Reform Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:614;Page:10683] 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: There will be no comment from the gallery.
Cunliffe David: Copyright (Parallel Importation of Films and Onus of Proof) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
Cunliffe David: Copyright (Parallel Importation of Films and Onus of Proof) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:612;Page:9402] 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of State) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Offices of Parliament—Address to Governor-General 
Offices of Parliament—Address to Governor-General 
[Volume:616;Page:12429] 
Offices of Parliament—Address to Governor-General 
Hon MARK BURTON (Deputy Leader of the House) 
 on behalf of the 
 Leader of the House 
: I am pleased to commend to members of the House Government notice of motion No. 2 in the name of my colleague the Hon Dr Michael Cullen. I move  
That a respectful address be presented to Her Excellency the Governor-General commending to Her Excellency the alterations to the appropriations for the 2003-04 financial year in respect of Vote Audit Vote Ombudsmen and Vote Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment and the appropriations for the 2004-05 financial year in respect of Vote Audit Vote Ombudsmen and Vote Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment 
. 
JOHN CARTER (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 Just very briefly I point out that these matters of course have been considered by the appropriate select committees. Although one or two issues were raised by members from the National Party to a large extent they have been addressed. There are some issues with regard to one or two of the votes but of course it is recognised that they need to be passed prior to the Budget being presented so the National Party will support their progress. 
Motion agreed to and Address agreed to.
te Heuheu Georgina: Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
te Heuheu Georgina: Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:612;Page:9461] 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) 
: 
 I very much appreciated the Minister rising to his feet and endeavouring to answer my colleagues’ questions. However I do not think he addressed the issue raised both at the Committee stage and in the second reading speeches of DNA tests being the modern equivalent of the fingerprint identification process. I would certainly appreciate—as would many who are listening—hearing the Minister’s views on that. Again I have to agree with my learned colleague Dr Mapp that in essence when we talk about things having moved on that is one of the areas where they have—that is to say whereas in the old days the fingerprint was the main means of identification today its equivalent the DNA test is and I think most people accept that. 
If that is the case and we on this side of the Chamber certainly believe it is then why is it such a big call—as it seems to be in the Minister’s mind and in the Government’s position—that such testing is not extended to all those who are arrested say on charges punishable by imprisonment? Why in 2003 does that seem such a big call? There will come a time given the convenience of the DNA test that fingerprinting will probably fall into misuse. I ask my honourable colleague whether that would be the case. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Yes. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU 
: So as I say we regard DNA testing as the equivalent of fingerprinting and in a very short space of time that process will be seen as being out of date. 
I would be very grateful if the Minister would get to his feet and give us the benefit of his thinking on that issue. The issues of civil liberties and of the rights of individuals disappeared when their fingerprints could be taken anyway. That is the point. If we now have a modern form of identification that is clearly simpler and quicker to use then why should we not move to that point? The other thing I flag is the issue of who should administer the test and we certainly have some views on that. We do not think the legislation goes far enough in that regard. 
One of the scheduled offences that should be included in the bill relates to peeping and peering. There is a very good reason for that. That offence is regarded by many as being a precursor to sexual violence. Why would we not include in the legislation the men who do that? They are slime-bags anyway. Anybody who indulges in peeping and peering deserves to fall within the authority of this legislation. It is not good enough that they do not. They are slime-bags and every tool available to the kit should be used. Mita Ririnui frowns but I say that he should think about those things.
Smith Nick: Points of Order — Local Government Law Reform Bill (No 2) Questions for Written Answer 
Smith Nick: Points of Order — Local Government Law Reform Bill (No 2) Questions for Written Answer 
[Volume:606;Page:3339] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (NZ National—Nelson) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I wish to raise a point of order on which I believe a considered ruling is required in respect of written questions. Last August I lodged written questions Nos 7801 7804 and 7805 to the Minister of Education regarding school funding and I received those answers on 24 January and 11 February which was a bit over 5 months late. But the more serious question is that the Minister’s office chose to distribute the answers to those questions to numerous media and education organisations well before the Table Office or myself had received those answers. In fact I have an email from the Minister’s staff that the Minister specifically instructed his staff to distribute those answers to the media. I seek your ruling on both the timing and the appropriateness of Ministers distributing answers to questions to organisations outside of Parliament ahead of them being received by a member or published in the Replies Supplement. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thank the member for raising the point of order. [ 
Interruption 
] The Minister of Education would like to comment.
Smith Nick: Relationships (Statutory References) Bill — Second Reading 
Smith Nick: Relationships (Statutory References) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:624;Page:18980] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. There is a long run of Speakers’ rulings and Standing Orders about the order in which speakers will be called on a Government bill and there is a different set of Speakers’ rulings for a conscience issue. I am seeking clarification from yourself as to what set of Standing Orders you are dealing with. Although this is a Government bill it is a conscience vote. It is perfectly reasonable for me simply to ask you which rules we are abiding by. Are you calling members in the order of party rankings as per a Government bill or are you doing it as for a conscience vote in which those Speakers’ rulings and Standing Orders would apply?
Vote: Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:618;Page:14049] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 83 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 35 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Amendment agreed to.
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:611;Page:8116] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (NZ National—Ilam) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You have just told us that there were two Ministers who could answer the question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No I was told by the Minister— 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Yes you were told that and you confirmed it by instructing the House as such. If that is the case why was the question not transferred to the other Minister this morning so that we could have known at 11 o’clock who was going to be answering it? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The reason is that any Minister can answer any question on anyone else’s behalf.
Goff Phil: Motions — Bali Bombing—Second Anniversary 
Goff Phil: Motions — Bali Bombing—Second Anniversary 
[Volume:620;Page:15997] 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade) 
: 
 I move  
That this House note the second anniversary today of the Bali bombing recall with sorrow the lives lost and damaged by the actions of terrorists and condemn the ongoing acts of terrorism that deliberately target the lives of innocent people 
. Two hundred and two people three of whom were New Zealanders perished in Bali on this day 2 years ago and hundreds more were injured and traumatised. Since that appalling event further lives have been lost through terrorism in Jakarta Madrid Beslan the Middle East and other countries. In cooperation with the international community New Zealand will continue its efforts at home in the Pacific in Afghanistan and elsewhere to oppose terrorism and tackle the conditions that foster it.
Cullen Michael: Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Third Reading 
Cullen Michael: Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Third Reading 
[Volume:613;Page:10043] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 2) be now read a third time 
. 
Bill read a third time.
Catchpole Brent: Fair Trading Amendment Bill (No 3) — Second Reading 
Catchpole Brent: Fair Trading Amendment Bill (No 3) — Second Reading 
[Volume:607;Page:4715] 
BRENT CATCHPOLE (NZ First) 
: 
 The objective of this bill is to strengthen the Fair Trading Act. It particularly focuses on pyramid selling. Although pyramid-selling schemes are already illegal under the existing Fair Trading Act this bill extends the scope of the Act to incorporate newer forms of pyramid selling that have developed since the original Act was implemented—for example schemes where the participants buy or sell an investment opportunity and use agents provided by the scheme operators to recruit other participants on their behalf. Instead of finding the recruits themselves they ask the agents to do so. If we look around this House we find that one party here was recruited to find a particular agent and I am referring to Mr Rodney Hide who went to Fiji as an agent to recruit people for a pyramid-selling scheme that turned out to be a total scam. 
Stephen Franks 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I understand that that reference was to a matter on which there has been a personal explanation. It is against the Standing Orders to refer to the matter in a way that implies that there was some substance to it when there was none. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member is correct. There should be no further reference to the matter. There has been a personal explanation. 
BRENT CATCHPOLE 
: I must point out that this bill does not affect existing legitimate franchise operators. They continue to operate as they have done in the past. 
I would like to draw attention to clause 14 which deals with search powers. Under the current wording of section 47 of the Fair Trading Act the Commerce Commission can search to ascertain whether a person has or may have contravened the Act. This bill extends the Commerce Commission’s search powers under section 47 so that it may obtain a warrant to search for evidence demonstrating the nature or extent of any breach of the Act revenue obtained through the offending or other matters material to the seriousness of the breach. That is to assist the Commerce Commission in gathering evidence for the courts to consider in sentencing. We in New Zealand First have difficulty with that provision because the extension of powers of search amounts almost to harassment. The commission has an unfettered power to undertake a fishing expedition to search for evidence to endeavour to prove its cases. We feel that that is putting too much emphasis on the search process and giving it too much power. We have difficulty with that particular aspect so we ask that it be reviewed during the Committee stage and that change be considered. 
Noting those concerns New Zealand First supports in general the purpose of this bill and we are looking forward to debating it in the Committee stage.
Sittings of the House 
Sittings of the House 
[Volume:619;Page:14654] 
Sittings of the House 
DAIL JONES (Junior Whip—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I wonder whether you can help me with regard to a procedure problem that we seem to face in this House. I draw your attention to page 3 of the Order Paper. We have three private members’ bills that will not be debated tonight including the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Genetically Modified Organisms Moratorium Reinstatement) Amendment Bill which New Zealand First desperately wants to debate and see passed in this House and yet the Greens refuse to put that bill up for debate. What can we do to make sure that that bill can come before the House as soon as possible? We are likely to see an early adjournment tonight and we still have 1 hour and 20 minutes to go. We could easily have considered that bill yet the Greens do not want to put it up for us to debate tonight. What can we in New Zealand First do to make sure that that important legislation is dealt with? 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The answer is that it is entirely up to the member who is promoting the bill. It is his decision. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Whip—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I have a parallel but different concern; it is with the way the Order Paper is being managed. I notice that time and time again this House rises early for dinner breaks and consistently rises early on members’ night yet the Government still goes into urgency and even when it takes an urgency motion it still wants to rise early. There seems to be something going awry with the compilation of the Order Paper and the flow of matters of business to this House and I think all members are concerned because it is happening too frequently. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: That matter is entirely up to the House. 
JILL PETTIS (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
After discussion with other members and in light of the progress we have made on members’ day I seek leave for the House to rise at this time. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave has been sought for that purpose and it is opposed. Leave is not granted.
Bradford Sue: Crimes (Drug Rape) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Bradford Sue: Crimes (Drug Rape) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:617;Page:12674] 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 On behalf of the Green Party I would like to thank Dianne Yates for introducing the Crimes (Drug Rape) Amendment Bill to the House in July last year. I am sure Ms Yates’ bill and she herself have made a positive impact on the development of the Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) which the Law and Order Committee is considering at the moment. I imagine that like everyone in the House I look forward to the day when measures to strengthen the ability of the courts to convict in drug rape cases are passed into law. 
I realise that the Green Party and particularly people like myself are not usually in the camp of those calling for the strengthening of police and court powers. However in situations like those dealt with by this bill I feel strongly that the legislation must be changed to make sure that those who rape people through the use of premeditated application of drugs do not escape conviction because of legal ambiguities. 
From my own life and work experience I am aware that historically many people have been subject to drug rape in this country and it is a crime from which offenders have traditionally escaped scot-free. The people who have not escaped have been the many women and some men who have suffered as victims. Somehow society saw—and in some cases perhaps still sees—that if a woman or man is intoxicated and taken advantage of sexually the victim is still to blame. And if the offender can get away with it then it is good on them and no harm done. 
Luckily we have a Government for whom such primitive notions must be relegated to the dustbin of history. I am aware that already the court system and police have been starting to catch up as well but have not been able to go anywhere near as far as they should have been. It is clear that we need to go a lot further in making sure that where someone does not consent to sex because they are unconscious asleep or grossly affected by alcohol or drugs the perpetrator can still and must be held to account. 
I must admit however that had this member’s bill been going forward in its original form I would have had some problems with it as it did appear to deal only with the cases of people who were raped following their ingestion of drugs administered by someone else. I am therefore glad the expanded Government legislation appears to have been extended to include rape in any situation where people are unable reasonably to give their consent to any form of sexual connection. 
It is way past the time that we as a society acknowledged the reality of what happens all too often in our pubs clubs and back rooms of our towns and cities and what happens most particularly to our younger and more vulnerable citizens. I look forward to the passing of the Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) which has grown partially out of this bill. Once again I thank Dianne Yates and all those around her for the role they have played in ensuring that this issue finally gets the parliamentary attention it deserves.
Carter Chris: Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Carter Chris: Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:6776] 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Conservation) 
: I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Vote: Corrections Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Corrections Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:607;Page:4706] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Corrections Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 81 
Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 8; United Future 8. 
Noes 35 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Bill read a first time and referred to the Law and Order Committee. referred to the Law and Order Committee
Vote: Employment Relations Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Employment Relations Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:16147] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to.  
Ayes 44 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 76 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Amendment not agreed to.
Vote: Corrections Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Corrections Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:12994] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 5 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (1) the words “contribute to the maintenance of a safe and just society” and substitute the words “improve public safety and reduce criminal offending”.
Prebble Richard: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Prebble Richard: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:607;Page:4277] 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I saw Mr Martin Gallagher go for a call. If it is acceptable for the National Party and other parties to take many calls why are you limiting a Labour member? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Labour members are allocated one supplementary question per question and that is the understanding they have. They do not have any other. If they seek leave to have one now then they will miss one out in the future. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: Some member of the Labour Party may have said that to you but if an MP rises and goes for the call then I think you are obliged to take that member. For all we know Mr Gallagher may have a new view on Iraq and he should not be suppressed. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I decide who gets supplementary questions. It is done in a manner that has been established with each of the parties by way of discussion that I have had with them. Some members provide me with lists on how many supplementary questions they want on a particular question and they can do it that way but the general rule stands and that is the way it is.
Business Statement 
Business Statement 
[Volume:607;Page:4485] 
Business Statement 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week in the House it is the Government’s intention to take urgency on Tuesday rising by 6 p.m. on Friday. I will circulate a full list of business to be included in the urgency motion to all party whips by late Monday. However I can say that it is all but certain that it will begin with all stages of the Land Transport (Street and Illegal Drag Racing) Amendment Bill followed by selected first readings as listed on today’s Order Paper.
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:6271] 
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 71 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to.