edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Gosche Mark: Railways Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Gosche Mark: Railways Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:19904] 
Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie) 
: 
 I am happy to take a very brief call on the Railways Bill. As the chair of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee I want to thank fellow committee members for all their hard work—those who turned up and understood the bill. I think there was an ACT leadership thing going on— 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Primary! 
Hon MARK GOSCHE 
: Yes primary—that was it—paid for by the taxpayer. It was not done by rail though; I think it was done by aeroplane. Quite frankly I think that speech was an ungracious one because Deborah Coddington does actually contribute very positively to the committee when she is there. On this bill all the members worked through a very good process. 
As the Minister of Defence said in his speech this measure is about an approach whereby the Government does not set the rules then expect the people out there just to follow them; the people out there are actually engaged in setting the rules themselves monitoring them and making sure from both the management and the workforce perspectives that they have the safest possible rail system in New Zealand. There are many terrible international examples of rail safety gone wrong. The select committee tried to learn from those examples and not repeat the mistakes. I think in this bill we have the best of both worlds. We have proper Government intervention through a proper Government agency but more important we have management and workers together making sure we have a safe railway system. I look forward to the debate in the Committee where we can test that as we go through the bill.
Robertson H V Ross: Estimates Debate —  
Robertson H V Ross: Estimates Debate —  
[Volume:610;Page:7149] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: It seems eminently sensible. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the member. There appears to be no objection.
Hughes Darren: Corrections Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
Hughes Darren: Corrections Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:13040] 
DARREN HUGHES (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I think there are two key points here. The first point is that Mr Alexander did not seek the call on Part 3. The second point is that having accepted a closure motion the Committee then voted on it. The Committee voted for the question to be now put. So the points that members are making are academic in that sense because the Committee has had the question before it it has voted on the question and now the appropriate thing to do is to put the question. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Can I just say to members that the closure has been agreed. I must now proceed with putting the questions on the amendments and the part. I recognise that there have been some concerns. There are other parts where this can be debated. There is the title debate as well. I will take that into consideration. But I have to say that not a lot of people were calling and I judged as I did. Regardless of how people take that the actual situation is that I have taken the closure and we must now move on.
Vote: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — Third Reading 
Vote: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:624;Page:19340] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 96 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 19 
New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6. 
Bill read a third time.
Vote: Sale of Liquor Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
Vote: Sale of Liquor Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
[Volume:613;Page:10193] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Sale of Liquor Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a first time. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9. 
Noes 55 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Bill read a first time.
Ewen-Street Ian: Voting — Point of Order—Green Party Change of Vote 
Ewen-Street Ian: Voting — Point of Order—Green Party Change of Vote 
[Volume:610;Page:7399] 
IAN EWEN-STREET (Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I refer to the procedural motion we took a vote on a few moments ago and seek the leave of the House to change the vote of the Green Party. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is objection. I am sorry the honourable member cannot change the vote.
Hunt Jonathan: Resignations — Graham Kelly NZ Labour 
Hunt Jonathan: Resignations — Graham Kelly NZ Labour 
[Volume:610;Page:7343] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I wish to advise the House that I have received a letter from Mr Graham Kelly resigning his seat in the House with effect on 25 July 2003.
Pillay Lynne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Pillay Lynne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:610;Page:7826] 
5.  
LYNNE PILLAY (NZ Labour—Waitakere) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: What recent reports has he seen on employment growth? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 Last Friday Statistics New Zealand released the household labour force survey results for the June 2003 quarter. Employment growth of 15000 was stronger than expected driving unemployment down to a 16-year low of 4.7 percent. A total of 148000 more people have been employed since the Labour-led Government has been in office. Our unemployment rate is now considerably below the OECD average of 7.2 percent. 
Lynne Pillay 
: What difficulties have employers reported in finding labour and how is the Government responding? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The latest quarterly survey of business opinion indicated that a third of employers report difficulty in finding skilled labour an historically high one-seventh of all firms report labour as one of their main constraints and particular industries such as construction report labour as a constraint for 37 percent of firms. In response the Government has built on other policies to announce the Jobs Jolt employment policy to assist more people into employment and to address labour and skill shortages. 
Katherine Rich 
: Does he agree that the unemployment rate would have increased had there not been 10000 people in the last quarter leaving the labour force altogether and that by adding another 16000 people to the invalids benefit and sickness benefit since 1999 the problem of unemployment is further hidden? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: No. I think the two main reasons for unemployment falling from 5 percent to 4.7 percent is that there are a number of young people between the ages of 20 and 29 who have chosen educational opportunities at this time to lift their skills and a surge in employment in what might be called population areas such as construction the service industry and hospitality. I think that is the main reason for it.
Benson-Pope David: Dog Control Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Benson-Pope David: Dog Control Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:613;Page:10033] 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (Labour—Dunedin South) 
: 
 I am pleased to rise in support of this legislation. I would like to add my thanks and congratulations to those who have put such a considerable amount of time into the drafting and processing of the law and the hearing of submissions. As we all know this issue is far from simple. As the Minister of Local Government said in his introductory comments it is an issue that this House has ignored for some time rather than dealing with it. It is certainly an area that has seen renewed public calls for action so I think the community should be largely very pleased that this bill is having its third reading today. 
I was one of a large number of members from all parties in the House who had the opportunity to talk to Mr Anderson when he visited us nearly a year ago to discuss the issue. Those who were present would all acknowledge that seeing the photos of his daughter certainly focuses the mind on the issue. 
I am very pleased that this legislation has taken the form it has. The only disappointment for me in this debate is the irrational material that is currently being distributed by some—not all—branches of Federated Farmers. I am delighted to learn today that their own Bay of Plenty branch has come out against the more extreme statements from its head office and is now claiming that it supports the microchipping of all animals. For those in the rural sector it is also important that wild animals can be properly identified and the damage they do sheeted home to those responsible. I am pleased to support this very important public safety measure.
Vote: Fair Trading Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
Vote: Fair Trading Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6844] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 69 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 45 
New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name the of Hon Tony Ryall to clause 1 be agreed to: 
to omit the words “Fair Trading Amendment Bill (No 3) and substitute the words “Fair Trading (Pyramid Selling Schemes and Additional Powers) Amendment Bill”.
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Haemophilia Foundation of New Zealand 
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Haemophilia Foundation of New Zealand 
[Volume:613;Page:9703] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek leave to do two things: firstly to table a press release from the Haemophilia Foundation of New Zealand which clearly indicates that all members of Parliament are somewhat besmirched by the rather insensitive comments made yesterday by the Hon Dr Michael Cullen Deputy Prime Minister; and secondly to seek some direction from the member as to whether he intends to apologise to the foundation and to this House for besmirching all our reputations. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The second matter is not a point of order but the first one is. Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is.
Hide Rodney: General Debates 
Hide Rodney: General Debates 
[Volume:613;Page:10161] 
RODNEY HIDE (ACT) 
: 
I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Mr Clayton Cosgrove raised a question about whether I was being paid. Yes indeed like all MPs I am being paid by the taxpayer. I think Clayton Cosgrove should start to give some explanations about some plane tickets he took when working for Mike Moore pretending he was someone else. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: That is not a point of order.
Jones Dail: Statutes Amendment Bill (No 3) — First Reading 
Jones Dail: Statutes Amendment Bill (No 3) — First Reading 
[Volume:607;Page:4648] 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 I was slightly provoked into taking this call. I have enjoyed the process of this legislation for New Zealand First. The member who preceded me though started to talk about the business law reform bill and that provoked me. There are five short sections in that bill that I have suggested to the Minister of Commerce should have been inserted in this legislation. Perhaps they will come in as a Supplementary Order Paper. The other eight items were very lengthy some of them going to two and three pages and would clearly not be suitable for this legislation. From a New Zealand First point of view they should be matters of separate legislation because even the New Zealand Law Society in the information that has been made available to me—for which I am grateful—indicated there were errors of drafting and errors of understanding of the legislation. I just make that point in a brief reply and trying not to be too controversial about it. 
Bill read a first time and referred to the Government Administration Committee. referred to the Government Administration Committee
Tisch Lindsay: Immigration Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Tisch Lindsay: Immigration Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:611;Page:8212] 
LINDSAY TISCH (Junior Whip—NZ National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I do not want to interrupt the debate but there is a bit of feedback coming through the microphones. When my colleague Pansy Wong was speaking there was a lot of feedback. I do not know whether it is affecting other microphones but it was certainly affecting her one.
Hunt Jonathan: Urgent Debates Declined — Overseas Investment Act—Review 
Hunt Jonathan: Urgent Debates Declined — Overseas Investment Act—Review 
[Volume:613;Page:9856] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from Rod Donald seeking to debate under Standing Order 376 the decision to review the Overseas Investment Act. This is a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility but I do not consider however that the decision to initiate a review that will lead to legislative proposals by the middle of next year requires an urgent debate to be held on it today. The application is accordingly declined.
Simich Clem: Overseas Investment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Simich Clem: Overseas Investment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:21566] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I thank members for that. It is entirely up to the Chair. Yes Brian Connell was in mid-sentence. There are quite a few calls to come yet and I have no doubt the member will get some of those. I tried not to cut him off. Mr Donald was given consecutive calls because he has a great number of amendments. I think it will be fair all round. I did not want National to sneak too far ahead of New Zealand First at this stage.
Key John: Customs and Excise (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Key John: Customs and Excise (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:608;Page:5363] 
JOHN KEY (NZ National—Helensville) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I wonder whether I could reflect on the ruling you made in Mr English’s speech that you would take time off his speech for points of order and in particular I draw your attention to Speaker’s ruling 16/2 which states: “A point of order must be brought up at the time it occurs …”. I wonder whether it would be possible to bring up a point of order at the time it occurs if that time is to come off the member’s speaking time. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If I think the member has provoked a point of order then I will do that. On reflection I think the Leader of the Opposition was correct and I was in error when I did what I did.
Robertson H V Ross: Land Transport (Unauthorised Street and Drag Racing) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Robertson H V Ross: Land Transport (Unauthorised Street and Drag Racing) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:607;Page:4590] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the honourable member. It was an observation that I had made about the nature of the schedule. The consequential amendments will allow members to voice those issues so that does open it up a little bit.
Peck Mark: Motor Vehicle Sales Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Peck Mark: Motor Vehicle Sales Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:607;Page:4777] 
MARK PECK (NZ Labour—Invercargill) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Business of the House Allocation of Questions 
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Business of the House Allocation of Questions 
[Volume:606;Page:3901] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (NZ National—Ilam) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I raise an issue understanding—as all parties do—that the allocation of questions is done according to a formula. I want to point out that today we have to go to question No. 6 before the major Opposition party has a question. Prior to that we have three questions asked of the Government by the Government. I make it clear that question time is for the Opposition parties to question Government Ministers and if we have a formula being applied in this case that will mean the major Opposition party does not come into play until halfway through the day then clearly we need to have a new formula.
Vote: Urgency 
Vote: Urgency 
[Volume:609;Page:6717] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That urgency be accorded. 
Ayes 60 
Labour 52; United Future 8. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Green Party 9. 
Motion agreed to.
Barker Rick: Films Videos and Publications Classification Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Barker Rick: Films Videos and Publications Classification Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:615;Page:11472] 
Hon RICK BARKER (Associate Minister of Justice) on behalf of the Minister of Justice 
: 
 I move  
That the Films Videos and Publications Classification Amendment Bill be referred to the Government Administration Committee for consideration 
referred to the Government Administration Committee 
 and that the committee report the bill by 30 June 2004.
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 schedule 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Hughes Darren: Social Security (Long-term Residential Care) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Hughes Darren: Social Security (Long-term Residential Care) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:621;Page:16764] 
DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 Of all the issues for the National Party to attack a Labour-led Government on those concerning older people would have to be the last that that party would have the gall to raise on the floor of Parliament. That is the party that promised in 1990—“no ifs no buts no maybes”—that the surcharge would go. That was the party that in coalition with New Zealand First in 1996 promised that party it would abolish asset testing and income testing not just in the public sector but also in the private sector. That is the party that now in Opposition will not even tell older New Zealanders what its policy will be on superannuation. That is the party that when Mrs Shipley was its leader cut superannuation for older people. So as we approach the second reading of the Social Security (Long-term Residential Care) Amendment Bill I am sure the House will forgive me if I am a little bit cynical that National Party speakers have the cheek to get up and criticise the performance of the Labour-Progressive Government. 
This bill improves the situation for older people. Every time we deal with matters affecting older people we make things better for them. We might not deliver nirvana we might not make absolutely everything perfect but we improve their situation. We leave them better off as a result of our policies not worse off. The National Party’s record every single time it has tried to do something for older people is that it has made them worse off. It is no surprise to me that the National Party could find only one of its retiring members of Parliament to stand up tonight and attack this legislation because in my electorate of Otaki which has the highest number of people over the age of 65 I know that this bill will make a difference. I know that this Labour-Progressive Government is introducing legislation that will improve life for older people just like we improved it when we increased superannuation in 2000. 
This Government helps older people. We are on their side and National Party members should plead guilty to their years of neglect decline and absolute betrayal of older New Zealanders.
Vote: Sale of Liquor Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Sale of Liquor Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12360] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 35 
New Zealand National 26; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 84 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to.
Vote: Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Bill — In Committee Procedure Third Reading 
Vote: Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Bill — In Committee Procedure Third Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:20978] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 55 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8. 
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 14(2) be agreed to: 
to omit paragraph (e).
Dunne Peter: Border Security Bill — In Committee 
Dunne Peter: Border Security Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:618;Page:13747] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I was not going to speak in this debate until I heard that extraordinary speech from the member who has just resumed his seat. I put on record categorically without equivocation or anything of that nature that United Future has opposed the Border Security Bill from the moment it was proposed has voted against it at every stage in the House—I do not know where the member has actually been—and will be voting against it at this Committee stage. My colleague Gordon Copeland who has done a huge amount of work on this bill—and I am grateful that Mr Ardern acknowledges that—has received a personal commendation from the trade and tourism coalition for the work he has done in mounting a very strong campaign against the provisions of this bill. If members of the Opposition were more interested in the reality of the issue than in petty politics they would have acknowledged that and also Mr Copeland’s contribution both in the House and through the select committee process in the Government Administration Committee. 
This bill does create new impositions that are unacceptable—impositions that we think fall properly within the defence of the realm and are public responsibilities that should not be borne by any individual sector of the economy. We have made that point throughout the debate on this bill right from the time it was proposed and before it was even introduced to the House when we were talking to the trade and tourism coalition and others who are affected by it. We raised questions in the House from the time that this measure first came on to the agenda which I am sure that the Minister would testify to and we have spoken against it on every occasion. Let there be no doubt about the strength of our opposition. Let there be no doubt about our view that this is not a wise move. It is not in New Zealand’s long-term interests in terms of our ability to grow our export trade and it is also not in our long-term interests in terms of any sense that if impositions are made upon us in order to meet requirements imposed by other countries we should duck the notion that those are legitimate defence of the realm matters and pass the buck to the particular sector upon whom we think some benefit may accrue. 
This is a bad principle. It is wrong in its concept and wrong in its practice. We have opposed it and let there be no doubt about that.
Pettis Jill: Customs and Excise (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Pettis Jill: Customs and Excise (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:608;Page:5396] 
JILL PETTIS (Junior Whip—NZ Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Amended Answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 8 to Minister 
Amended Answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 8 to Minister 
[Volume:616;Page:12416] 
Amended Answers to Oral Questions 
Question No. 8 to Minister 
Hon RICK BARKER (Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 I seek leave under Standing Order 343 to make a personal explanation concerning the answer I gave to question No. 8 today in the House. I need to make a correction. In answer to the question I said that the number of people under the age of 24 who were in receipt of an unemployment benefit was 22949. I overstated the case considerably. There are only 20146 such people and I am sure that members are delighted at that improvement.
Vote: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Procedure Referral to Health Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled  Speaker Recalled In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Procedure Referral to Health Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled  Speaker Recalled In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:613;Page:10010] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 53 
New Zealand National 24; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 3 Green Party 9. 
New clause 11A not agreed to.
Shirley Ken: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Stockholm Convention) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Shirley Ken: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Stockholm Convention) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6970] 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT NZ) 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: It had better be something different. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: It certainly is different. I appreciate that. You have given us a rule although it is not particularly clear on the beverage and water issue. I now seek clarification with regard to the food aspect in particular as it relates to lozenges Strepsils Minties and various other lollies. I notice that many of the Labour front-benchers chew their cud regularly. That would also be in breach of that Speaker’s ruling. Having dealt with beverages we now need to address the food side of the equation. The situation could arise where a member wants to dissolve an aspirin in his or her water which would take us back to the former argument. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the member; he has made his point. I do not want to take points ad nauseum. I am just going to say this. I would not take exception to a member discreetly sucking a peppermint or a throat lozenge but it should go no further than that.
Gosche Mark: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Gosche Mark: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:620;Page:15586] 
8.  
Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie) 
 to the  
Minister of Transport 
: What plans if any has the Government for rail in New Zealand? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 I am delighted to announce today that this Government is releasing a draft rail strategy for public comment. The strategy details how and why we are to invest an initial $200 million to upgrade and restore the rail network. We want more passengers and freight to go by rail for the benefit of business the economy local communities and the environment and to help reduce congestion on our roads. 
Hon Mark Gosche 
: Has the Minister seen comment that “The Government has no place in the rail business.” and what is his response to such comment? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Yes I have. It reflects an approach of starving our transport infrastructure of investment for ideological reasons. It fits with one of the most incompetent privatisations ever seen; our rail system was sold for a song with no guarantees as to service or safety the profits made a rapid exit to the Lake Geneva shoreline and subsequent investment was minimal. Who would do that? The answer of course is the National Party. 
Peter Brown 
: Is the Minister aware that there is another alternative to using congested roads and that is coastal shipping and what is he doing about enhancing or developing coastal shipping? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I certainly am aware of that alternative and I think the member makes a very good point. It is very clear that a sustainable inshore or coastal shipping service is in New Zealand’s best interests and I do not know of anyone who disagrees with that. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: How many years and how much taxpayers’ money does he expect it to take to restore our rail system to the state it was in before Ruth Richardson sold it and Fay Richwhite milked it dry? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: It has been 11 long years since that incompetent decision was taken and this Government will have the rail system back on its wheels well within that time.
Barker Rick: Police Complaints Authority (Commission of Inquiry into Police Conduct) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee 
Barker Rick: Police Complaints Authority (Commission of Inquiry into Police Conduct) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee 
[Volume:617;Page:12863] 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister for Courts) 
: 
 Mr Speaker may I explain? I had spoken to the whips to try to get acceptance that it be taken as a single question but I have been told by one party that it will not grant leave for that to happen. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Well that of course has to be done by leave but now the member has moved a motion to take the bill part by part.
Hunt Jonathan: Speaker’s Rulings — Privileges of the House and Speaker's Actions 
Hunt Jonathan: Speaker’s Rulings — Privileges of the House and Speaker's Actions 
[Volume:611;Page:8737] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No if he is assuming that it is not the same as a breach of privilege. Illegality is a matter for the court. The admissibility of evidence in court is a matter for the court and I have no discretion to rule evidence admissible or inadmissible. I have no discretion to do that.
Ririnui Mita: Education (Disestablishment of Early Childhood Development Board) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Ririnui Mita: Education (Disestablishment of Early Childhood Development Board) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:611;Page:8566] 
MITA RIRINUI (NZ Labour—Waiariki) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to stand in this House in support of this bill along with most members who believe that childhood education—indeed education right across the board—is the most important issue facing a lot of New Zealanders. I was very pleased to hear the previous speaker alert the House to the fact that his education started at preschool level. Certainly he has leadership qualities so I think that it is very important for us to be confident that he does have that experience. 
The bill will ensure the integration of the Early Childhood Development Board into the Ministry of Education. For many years many of my constituents have been very concerned about the lack of cohesion across the education sector. Although there has been a high level of participation in early childhood education in my electorate for almost a decade there has been a high level of non-participation and that is the crucial issue we do not appear to want to discuss in this House. I am sure that this bill will ensure greater participation right across the board and I look forward to the Minister going round the traps and promoting this legislation amongst all those features in education.
Ririnui Mita: Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee 
Ririnui Mita: Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:625;Page:20255] 
Hon MITA RIRINUI (Associate Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 As Mr Brownlee said during his speech this is a very straightforward part of the bill and it is not necessary to spend too much time on it. But I will attempt to address the issues that have been highlighted by all the other speakers as well as by myself. Gerry Brownlee referred to clause 124 “Roadways and rights of way”. Part 5 contains provisions that enable the Crown to transfer certain properties to Tuwharetoa ki Kawerau in a way that enables access to be protected. So it guarantees access to those blocks that would otherwise be landlocked. Some members may be fairly familiar with the discussion we had at the Maori Affairs Committee in relation to a particular area of land that was described as KA30. If the provisions in Part 5 were not made we would basically give Tuwharetoa ki Kawerau ownership of land that it could not actually get to. A similar situation has applied in many of the previous settlements as well as this one. 
Mr Mapp was concerned about clause 121 “Minister of Conservation may grant easements”. Easements over Department of Conservation land ensure guaranteed access by Tuwharetoa ki Kawerau as I mentioned earlier on because they will be the owners of the forest in that particular area in the future as part of the settlement. There are already many similar easements in place throughout Crown forest land in the central North Island that are in favour of the current licence holders so that they can maintain access to those areas. 
Mr Shirley was concerned about Lake Taupo. We are actually talking about Tuwharetoa ki Kawerau and the lake bed of Lake Taupo has nothing to do with that particular iwi although there is an association there. In the first reading of this bill the Hon Georgina te Heuheu pointed that matter out to Mr Shirley and this is probably an opportunity to do that again. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 367 in the name of the Hon Mark Burton to Part 5 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to and Part 5 as amended agreed to.
Vote: Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8722] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 82 
Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 35 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Amendment agreed to and Part 3 as amended agreed to.
Power Simon: Masterton District Council (Montfort Trimble Foundation) Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Power Simon: Masterton District Council (Montfort Trimble Foundation) Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:614;Page:10423] 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 Although I understand why the Committee would make that move in order to expedite matters I am a little disappointed. I was hoping we would enter into a long debate about the title of this bill and we might have been able to have a pretty detailed discussion about whether it truly reflected the intentions of the legislation currently before the Committee. It is my intention to take two very short calls on this matter— 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: On the title? 
SIMON POWER 
: On the title that is right—and then two on the commencement date and so on clause by clause. But no I intend to take two short calls—the first on the bill in general and the second relating to the amendment tabled by Georgina Beyer which in my haste to take a call I have been unable to get a copy of. So I hope to return for a quick second call on that point. 
The substantive matters contained in this bill have been well canvassed by the member in the Chair as well as by my honourable colleague from New Zealand First who is clearly resident in the Wairarapa. I did not realise that but— 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: I did. 
SIMON POWER 
: The Hon Ken Shirley said that he realised that. That is because he has a forest on the man’s land does he not? 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Just down the road. 
SIMON POWER 
: Is that right? Oh OK—very good. So all we are doing here from what I can gather essentially in respect of some public afforestation is allowing the areas outside what used to be presumably the Masterton County Council—is that right? [ 
Interruption 
] The Chairperson is nodding at me frantically. Presumably that was before Brian Elwood’s amalgamation in the late 1980s. He is a former senior partner of the firm I work for incidentally—in case anyone in the Chamber is interested while I try to kill 5 minutes. He is an interesting fellow and a guy who did a great deal for the law in Palmerston North as well as going on to be a long-serving mayor of that city before the amalgamations of local government occurred. But I digress in this wide-ranging debate. [ 
Interruption 
] Thank you. 
Obviously the major point here from what I can gather briefly is to extend the powers of the trust the trustees and council in order that matters outside the immediate jurisdiction of what was the county council can now be taken into account in respect of the administration of the various trusts involved. It seems to me to be legislation that nobody in the Committee would have good reason to object to. I look forward to a second short call on the amendment tabled by Georgina Beyer.
Dalziel Lianne: Overseas Investment Bill — First Reading 
Dalziel Lianne: Overseas Investment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:622;Page:18038] 
LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 I want to take just a brief call. This particular bill has certainly provoked some interest in my own electorate of Christchurch East and I know that there are constituents who want to have meetings about it in order to discuss the ramifications of it. I think my constituents will find that the aim of creating a balance between the need to protect New Zealand’s assets while also promoting overseas investments in order to achieve growth and innovation will have been met. I look forward to the debate and the report back from the select committee in due course.
Sowry Roger: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Sowry Roger: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:611;Page:8116] 
Hon ROGER SOWRY (Deputy Leader—NZ National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I want to make the point that in your ruling you said the Deputy Prime Minister made the offer that the question could be rephrased. In fact he made two offers. He offered that the question not be asked which is what has happened and that it be put down for when the Minister is here. We twice sought leave for that to occur and both times the Deputy Prime Minister objected. So it is a bit disingenuous of him to stand up in the House and say that we could put it down for when the Minister is here. The Government will not say when he will be here. It is an issue that the Government knows the Minister is in some difficulty on. The Government will not say when he will be here and it will not let the question be held over until he can answer it.
Woolerton R Doug: Prostitution Reform Bill — In Committee 
Woolerton R Doug: Prostitution Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:608;Page:5744] 
R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First) 
: 
 As I understand it New Zealand First members of Parliament to a person are against the— 
David Benson-Pope 
: Who is that man? 
R DOUG WOOLERTON 
: The senior whip on the Government side wants to know who I am. My name is Doug Woolerton and I am about to speak on this bill this evening—I hope without too many interruptions from him. However we in New Zealand First will vote against this bill to a person. We believe it is naive in the extreme. The bill states that its purpose is to ensure that prostitutes are looked after better and to make their lives safer more acceptable and so on—I am not quoting it word perfect. But it will do nothing of the kind and every person with any sense at all knows it. It is bills like this that make people outside of this place wonder whether the lunatics have taken over the asylum. 
There is no sense to this bill whatsoever. Everywhere in the world where prostitution has been legalised prostitution increases. More often than not prostitution uses young women. Wherever prostitution is legalised the use of young women increases and as the previous speaker said they are almost sold into slavery. This bill legalises pimps it legalises brothel owners and it does nothing at all for prostitutes or for the general public of New Zealand. It would be an interesting situation if our forefathers could come back to see what we have come to in this country in proposing bills like this one—bills that attempt to make the unacceptable acceptable that try to make the unsavoury savoury. We cannot do that by the passing of a bill of this nature. 
If indeed this bill were to make society better then we would be for it. If it were to increase productivity in New Zealand then we would be for it. If it were to help our children we would be for it. If it were to help our mothers fathers sisters and brothers we would be for it. But it will not do any of those things and it is a blasphemy on this nation. What has happened to societal rules? What has happened to those things that take us away from the animals of this world? What has happened to the nice things in society? What has happened to the things about which we politely do not speak? What has happened to those places we pass quietly by with our children and say: “These things happen my dear but we don’t talk about them.’’ and take our children on down the road? That is what society does. That is what hundreds of years of teaching and refining our society has done. We do not need bills like this that take us closer to the jungle that we have come away from. This bill is a blasphemy and I will vote against it with pride.
King Annette: Animal Products Amendment Bill (No 2) Animal Products (Ancillary and Transitional Provisions) Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Readings 
King Annette: Animal Products Amendment Bill (No 2) Animal Products (Ancillary and Transitional Provisions) Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Readings 
[Volume:624;Page:19211] 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister for Food Safety) 
: 
 I move  
That the Animal Products Amendment Bill (No 2) and the Animal Products (Ancillary and Transitional Provisions) Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a third time 
. This legislation provides for the regulation of the dairy industry under the Animal Products Act and repeals the Dairy Industry Act. The dairy industry is New Zealand’s largest industry with exports worth more than $508 billion to the New Zealand economy. There are over 14000 dairy farmer suppliers with 188 registered dairy factories 285 registered stores and transporters and 473 registered dairy premises. There is widespread industry support for this legislation and there has been unanimous support in this House. 
The legislation will provide for a seamless transition between the Dairy Industry Act and the Animal Products Act. It will deem all product safety programmes under the Dairy Industry Act to be risk management programmes under the Animal Products Act from 1 June 2005 which is the start of the next dairy season. On those grounds there will be little change for operators in their day-to-day business functions which means that there will be minimal compliance costs associated with the legislation. For the majority of the industry the technical requirements will initially remain the same. 
The dairy industry keenly awaits this legislation and is looking forward to receiving the benefits of operating under a new legislative framework that is consistent with the enabling style used in modern risk-based legislation. I thank the members of the Primary Production Committee for the work they did on reporting the legislation back to the House without amendment. There was little substance in the debate in the Committee of the whole House. Perhaps there was a little bit of point-scoring from Brian Connell as he made a speech against the New Zealand Food Safety Authority but I suspect that it was more a filler for his 5 minutes than a plan to scrap the authority should National ever become the Government. 
Hon David Carter 
: Who wrote this? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I say to Mr Carter that I wrote that all by myself. I thought we would have a little bit of passion in the debate because we did not get much in the Committee stage. 
I conclude by saying that this is long-awaited legislation. Dairy farmers will be very happy tonight to know that we have finally passed this legislation which enables them to start the next dairy season on 1 June 2005 with this legislation in place. I commend this legislation to the House for its third reading.
Vote: Prostitution Reform Bill — Second Reading 
Vote: Prostitution Reform Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:606;Page:3628] 
A personal vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments recommended by the Justice and Electoral Committee by majority be agreed to. 
Ayes 66 
Anderton (P) 
Ewen-Street  
King  
Smith L 
Barker  
Fairbrother  
Locke  
Sowry  
Barnett  
Fitzsimons (P) 
Maharey (P) 
Sutton (P)  
Benson-Pope  
Gallagher  
Mallard (P)  
Swain  
Beyer  
Goff  
Mapp (P) 
Tamihere (P)   
Bradford  
Gosche (P)  
McCully  
Tanczos (P) 
Brash (P)  
Hartley 
Okeroa (P) 
Tizard  
Burton  
Hawkins  
Parker  
Turei  
Carter C  
Hereora  
Peck  
Turia  
Chadwick  
Hide  
Pettis  
Ward  
Clark (P) 
Hobbs  
Pillay  
Williamson (P) 
Coddington (P)  
Hodgson (P)  
Rich (P) 
Wilson (P)  
Cullen (P) 
Horomia (P) 
Ririnui  
Wong (P) 
Cunliffe  
Hughes  
Robson  
Yates  
Dalziel  
Hunt (P) 
Roy (P)  
Donald  
Kedgley (P) 
Shirley (P) 
Teller: 
Dyson 
Key  
Simich  
Duncan 
Noes 52 
Adams  
Donnelly (P) 
Mahuta  
Scott (P) 
Alexander  
Dunne (P) 
Mark (P) 
Smith M  
Ardern (P) 
Duynhoven (P)  
McNair  
Smith N 
Awatere Huata  
Eckhoff  
Newman  
Stewart 
Baldock  
English (P) 
O’Connor  
te Heuheu  
Brown  
Field (P) 
Ogilvy  
Tisch  
Brownlee  
Franks  
Paraone  
Turner 
Carter D (P) 
Goudie  
Perry (P) 
Woolerton (P) 
Carter J (P) 
Gudgeon  
Peters J 
Worth (P) 
Catchpole  
Heatley  
Peters W (P)   
Choudhary (P)  
Hutchison (P) 
Power (P) 
Connell (P)  
Jones  
Robertson  
Copeland  
Laban  
Ryall (P) 
Teller: 
Cosgrove  
Mackey  
Samuels  
Collins 
Question agreed to.
Pettis Jill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Pettis Jill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:613;Page:9635] 
11.  
JILL PETTIS (Labour—Whanganui) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What steps is the Government taking to lift the educational achievements of school children in New Zealand? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 Our Government is investing heavily in numeracy initiatives because we see it as a top priority for lifting educational achievement. Initiatives include a nationwide numeracy project involving more than 10000 teachers and the hugely popular numeracy assessment tool known as “asTTle”. This award-winning tool allows teachers to test students’ skills accurately identify their weaknesses and adapt and target their teaching accordingly. 
Jill Pettis 
: What are the benefits of lifting numeracy skills? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Good numeracy skills are essential to everyday life and to success. It is important that 5-year-olds can count from one to 10 and it is important for adults to do more complicated calculations—such as starting with a base of 27 and learning to count to 14 from amongst those numbers. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister explain how an increase of 40 percent in spending on Ministry of Education bureaucrats is lifting the educational achievement of children? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I will brief the member later but in the last Budget— 
Opposition Member 
: Answer the question! 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister has the opportunity to answer the question before any comment like that can be made. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: In the last Budget the former Crown entity the Specialist Education Services came into the Ministry of Education thereby boosting the budget substantially. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: How will shutting down 300 schools help lift educational achievement of New Zealand schoolchildren? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: No decision has been taken to close 300 schools but I should say that spending money on numeracy initiatives rather than on building contractors for empty classrooms would be considerable progress.