edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Vote: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
Vote: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
[Volume:619;Page:15206] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 2 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Noes 55 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8; Maori Party 1. 
Clause 2 as amended agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I shall report this bill with amendment—
Benson-Pope David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Benson-Pope David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:606;Page:4067] 
5.  
DAVID BENSON-POPE (NZ Labour—Dunedin South) 
 to the  
Minister for the America's Cup 
: What were the factors that led to the Government’s decision to commit $5.6 million to Team New Zealand’s 2007 America’s Cup campaign? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for the America's Cup) 
: 
 Securing the team for a possible challenge from which New Zealand can leverage in 2007 was the main factor. We are confident that the next campaign will provide a chance to further develop and expand trade and tourism opportunities. 
David Benson-Pope 
: Will the Government contribute further funding for this campaign? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The $5.6 million is an initial sum and it will be a few months before we can confirm the final level of investment. We want to take time to consider the potential economic benefits that can be leveraged off a regatta in Europe. The final contribution will also depend on Team New Zealand’s ability to raise the vast majority of the funding from the private sector to mount a credible challenge. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: Has the Minister found it helpful in making these decisions to have available the economic study that was done of the 1999-2000 America’s Cup which showed an economic benefit to New Zealand of $640 million and is he prepared to make a copy of that report available to any members who have difficulty in understanding the reasons the Government is considering funding this matter? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Yes yes and did not Michelle do a better job on that than she did on other things? 
Gerrard Eckhoff 
: Why has the Government put $5.6 million into a yachting regatta for billionaires to ease their personal funding requirements when the same amount could ensure 300 extra hip replacements to ease the genuine pain of those in real need? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Because the tax benefits that came from the last campaign using those maths would have provided for 6000 hip replacements.
Peters Jim: Dog Control Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Peters Jim: Dog Control Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:613;Page:9884] 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 As has already been mentioned Part 5 covers a number of small issues. The Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper 167 has made a considerable improvement to clause 18—that is with regard to the failure of an owner to comply the word “must” has been deleted and the words “reasonable grounds” substituted. That is a more reasonable approach and is in line with the general thinking of the bill. As the part covers a number of fees and the fee structure and the issue of microchipping has been raised yet again I remind the Committee that this day in WaggaWagga New South Wales it costs $41 to microchip a dog at 6 months for life for a desexed dog it is $35 for life and for an undesexed dog it is $100 for life. The cost to date of microchippingoperative systems is not as high as one would believe. In our case it should be not much dearer because our systems like Australia’s are under the control of an officer with dog knowledge and ability. 
The only other issue I want to emphasise here is the leash and the subsequent cost if one does not use it. As the owner of a dog one must carry a leash in public. That seems to us to be a very sensible requirement. It overcomes some of the issues of strict enforcement and allows some ability to question the owner particularly if the dog is in a public place. Overall the range of amendments is sensible. They are more costly because they are meant to deter and they are part of a reasonable system of enforcement. To some the much larger fee structure for infringement might seem to be unfair but it is also in line with the thinking that the failure to register to maintain what is fair and reasonable with regard to change of ownership transfer and so on are all matters that are reasonably costly for local authorities and therefore that it will be adequate recompense for the problems and costs that those things incur.
Chadwick Steve: Gambling Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Chadwick Steve: Gambling Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8501] 
STEVE CHADWICK (NZ Labour—Rotorua) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Cunliffe David: Taxation (Base Maintenance  and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Cunliffe David: Taxation (Base Maintenance  and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:626;Page:21448] 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Associate Minister of Revenue) 
: 
 I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Taxation (Base Maintenance and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill that it take the bill part by part. 
Motion agreed to.
Hunt Jonathan: Points of Order — Dominion Post Article 
Hunt Jonathan: Points of Order — Dominion Post Article 
[Volume:612;Page:9250] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Let me just say that if the member wants to write a letter to me about that matter he is perfectly at liberty to do so and I would encourage him to do so if he wishes.
Cullen Michael: Imprest Supply (First for 2005/06) Bill — First Reading 
Cullen Michael: Imprest Supply (First for 2005/06) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:21261] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I move  
That the Imprest Supply (First for 2005/06) Bill be now read a first time. 
Bill read a first time.
Wilson Margaret: Points of Order — Chamber—Absence of Members 
Wilson Margaret: Points of Order — Chamber—Absence of Members 
[Volume:624;Page:19307] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member whom I asked to withdraw had raised a point of order several times. I had ruled on that point of order and he continued to raise that point of order. I now wish to move to question No. 2.
Mackey Moana: Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill — First Reading 
Mackey Moana: Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:621;Page:16458] 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to take a brief call on the NgatiTuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill. I rise in support of the bill and I pay my respects to all the people involved—the Hon Margaret Wilson and the negotiators from Ngati Tuwharetoa—for all the work they have put into this settlement bill. Settlement bills are one of the most important things I believe that we do in this House. It is those bills that really do allow us to move forward. While it is not very politically acceptable now to say that one supports this kind of claims bill and it is very politically hip to say that one does not like one part or another part of it I believe—I know—that a lot of work has gone into this settlement bill in good faith from those in Ngati Tuwharetoa and from the Government on behalf of the Crown. I believe that a lot of the fears that have been brought into this House about there being some kind of crossover between Ngati Awa and Ngati Tuwharetoa are largely baseless but that is what we have a select committee process for and I hope that the National Party members who do have concerns about the extent of these claims will take them to the Maori Affairs Committee where they will be heard in full. 
It is not possible to fully compensate Ngati Tuwharetoa for the prejudice and loss they have suffered but I do believe that this bill is a great step forward and I look forward to its speedy passage through the House.
Prebble Richard: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Prebble Richard: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:624;Page:19362] 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. You are absolutely right. The member is actually having later thoughts and under the Standing Orders that is totally out of order; members must raise the matter at the time. If you want to go into the merits of the points that the member has made you will find that in fact he is wrong there too. But the quick answer is that he is out of time so he is out of order.
Vote: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Stockholm Convention) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Stockholm Convention) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6991] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to.  
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Noes 69 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Dr Paul Hutchison to clause 8 be agreed to: 
to omit the words “small-scale” from the clause heading.
Barker Rick: Statutes Amendment Bill (No 5) — First Reading 
Barker Rick: Statutes Amendment Bill (No 5) — First Reading 
[Volume:624;Page:19586] 
Hon RICK BARKER (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 5) be now read a first time. 
 At the end of my presentation I intend to move that the bill be referred to the Government Administration Committee. As the House will be aware Statutes Amendment bills are useful for making minor technical and non-controversial amendments to a number of Acts. They allow amendments to be made that would not usually receive sufficient priority to be progressed. That is achieved because those minor amendments have the support of all parties. 
This bill introduces amendments to 24 Acts administered by nine different departments. Included in the proposals are amendments to the Continental Shelf Act that make technical changes to the definition of a continental shelf and add a related definition of a shelf’s seaward-side boundaries. The bill also amends the Defence Act by abolishing the Nelson Rifle Prize Fund and providing for the transfer of the fund monies to the cadet forces for specified use in the Nelson region. It amends the Forests Act by repealing sections 4 and 4A of that Act to align the delegations of Ministers and chief executives with those under other Acts administered by the ministry. My final example is an amendment to the Personal Property Securities Act that inserts a definition of “court” as meaning the High Court of New Zealand for the purposes of the Act. 
I note that the department administering the Radiocommunications Act has asked for the amendments to that Act to be withdrawn. Accordingly Part 18 will be struck out in due course. 
It is intended that the bill be referred to the Government Administration Committee as I said before. I commend the bill to the House.
Jones Dail: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Question No. 3 to Minister 
Jones Dail: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Question No. 3 to Minister 
[Volume:617;Page:13313] 
DAIL JONES (Junior Whip—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is a simple matter. He said that he would table the final report. The final report includes attachments B C and D. It is a simple matter and I am not asking him to do it now. He can do it at his convenience. I appreciate that there may be a practical problem but perhaps he could just give us an undertaking.
Tisch Lindsay: Rail Network Bill — First Reading 
Tisch Lindsay: Rail Network Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:19778] 
LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) 
: 
 We had a very lucid address from our member the Hon Maurice Williamson who made a very good speech. He indicated some changes he would like to see happen at the select committee. We are pleased to support this bill. We subscribe to his view that we should support this bill through to a select committee. We will be doing that. The bill will go to the Government Administration Committee of which I am a member so I look forward to receiving it there. However one thing we will vote against is the resolution by the Minister that would have that committee meeting at any time. We certainly will not be supporting that although we support the bill. 
Bill read a first time.
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:8653] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Honourable members on Thursday I indicated to the House that I intended to meet with the Commissioner of Police to discuss procedures for police conduct in Parliament House. I wish to inform the House that I did meet with the commissioner yesterday and we agreed to work together on devising such procedures. It is my intention to present the procedures to the House as a parliamentary paper as soon as possible after the forthcoming adjournment.
Points of Order — Urgent Question to Minister of Police—Shane Ardern 
Points of Order — Urgent Question to Minister of Police—Shane Ardern 
[Volume:614;Page:10437] 
Points of Order 
Urgent Question to Minister of Police—Shane Ardern 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek leave of the House to ask an urgent question of the Minister of Police now. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is the member indicating the subject? 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Yes and thank you for the opportunity to elucidate the content of the question. Quite clearly it would be a question about the extraordinary expense the police have gone to in pursuing the frivolous prosecution against Shane Ardern— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I did give the member an opportunity. Is there any objection to that course being followed? There is. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Given the unusual circumstances surrounding this case the obviously considerable amount of taxpayer money that has gone into it the allegations that— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: What is the point of order? 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: The point of order is simply whether we can expect a ministerial statement so that the Minister can explain himself. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is up to the Minister. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 Given that the Government is showing no signs that it wants to discuss this matter further clearly it would want Parliament to be able to have a say on a matter like this. Therefore I seek leave for there to be a debate immediately upon the end of question time to discuss this matter. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is. 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY (National—East Coast Bays) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think you will recall that a matter of privilege was raised with you some time ago in relation to the matter that Mr Brownlee has just raised with the House. You made a ruling that relied on the fact that a prosecution was in the offing to turn the matter down. In the light of these new circumstances I ask whether you will now revisit the matter that was earlier put before you. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No I dismissed the complaint at that time and that is the end of the matter. If any other letters are on their way that is then up to the members concerned.
Vote: Corrections Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Corrections Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:13043] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; 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 Marc Alexander to clause 197 be agreed to: 
to omit paragraph (a) of subclause (1).
Vote: Budget Debate 
Vote: Budget Debate 
[Volume:608;Page:6029] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment to the amendment to the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
Noes 62 
Amendment to the amendment to the amendment not agreed to. 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Green Party 8. 
Labour 52; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
The question was put that the following amendment to the amendment in the name of the Rt Hon Winston Peters be agreed to: 
that the following words be added: 
that this House also records that it has no confidence in this Government’s ability to govern as it only ACTS the part and even then only in a shallow and hammish way.
Tamihere John: Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Deletion Bill — First Reading 
Tamihere John: Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Deletion Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:21172] 
JOHN TAMIHERE (Labour—Tamaki Makaurau) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have two submissions. First the shadow Leader of the House rose and asked for leave of the House to make a 10-minute speech. That leave was declined by the House. He then stood and raised a further point of order and threatened you as Speaker by stating quite clearly that he would make sure that his speech would go through to 6 o’clock. He has just raised three frivolous and vexatious points of order to ensure that that threat is carried out. I am asking you as the Speaker to ensure that you give him the 5 minutes and put us out of our misery before dinner. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: That is not a point of order. I thank the honourable member and can I just say that I did not feel intimidated or threatened at all.
Mapp Wayne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Mapp Wayne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:620;Page:15659] 
5.  
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
 to the  
Minister of Labour 
: How does he believe the bargaining fee arrangements he intends introducing to the Employment Relations Law Reform Bill will benefit the nearly 1.7 million members of the New Zealand workforce who have chosen not to join a union and pay union fees? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 What a non-union employee decides to do about a bargaining fee arrangement will be a matter of free choice. The bargaining fee arrangement recommended by the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee would apply only where an employer and a union agree on a bargaining fee arrangement. Affected employees take part in a ballot to decide whether a bargaining fee should operate in their workplace and non-union employees who do not want to pay the fee may opt out. A non-union employee who decides to pay the bargaining fee would receive the benefits of the collectively bargained terms and conditions. Non-union employees who do not wish to pay are free to negotiate their own terms and conditions. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Why cannot the 1.7 million workers who choose not to belong to unions pay another third party not being a union their own fees so that they can negotiate their arrangements which may be the same or substantially better than those of the collective? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: The Employment Relations Act specifies quite clearly the relationship between collective agreements and individual agreements. The Act is quite clear that the negotiation of collective agreements is for unions. That was Government policy and it is in the Act. 
Helen Duncan 
: What reports has he seen about responses to the select committee’s report on the Employment Relations Law Reform Bill? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: I have seen a report that states that the business community is broadly happy with the Employment Relations Act. And I have seen a report that states that those comments are broadly consistent with National Party policy but that the person making the statements is not sure because he has not reread his own party’s industrial relations policy. That person is Don Brash the leader of the National Party. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Is the Minister aware that it is the National Party’s specific policy to totally repeal each and every provision of the Employment Relations Law Reform Bill and why does he not understand that simple proposition? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: Like the vast majority of New Zealanders I do not have a clue what National Party policy is on anything. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: What does the Minister say to employers negotiating with their employees who will now be subject to a fine of up to $10000 simply because they offer them the same terms as a collective which the unions would say has the effect of undermining the collective when that is all that is required by new section 59A(2) inserted by clause 19 of the bill? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: That if they do so in good faith they will be fine.
Prebble Richard: Points of Order — Privilege—Hon Harry Duynhoven 
Prebble Richard: Points of Order — Privilege—Hon Harry Duynhoven 
[Volume:610;Page:7291] 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am obliged to you for that remark and I accept it but can you also confirm that this is a decision for you to make not for anyone else? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It depends on the procedures. The Government of course can introduce bills if it wishes but if it does not then the member is correct.
Donnelly Brian: Education (Export Education Levy) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Donnelly Brian: Education (Export Education Levy) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:619;Page:14759] 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
: 
 My call will be brief but I will point out why New Zealand First has concerns with regard to this bill and the legislation that went before it. I mentioned that the last amendment upon which this bill is based and which it amends was put before the House 2 days before the Education and Science Committee was to deliberate on it. It was inevitable under those circumstances that we would get little hiccups in the process. When it comes to the law they are actually quite big hiccups as the Minister of Education who is also the Associate Minister of Finance knows. This bill is just an example of the need to correct that situation. 
I also take the opportunity to point out something else that seems to be escaping people. Everyone keeps saying that it will be the private providers that have to pay the levy. Ultimately in fact it will be the students who pay because the cost of the levy will be added on to the cost of courses. Whatever levy we impose will go on to the students and that will make our courses here in New Zealand less competitive with courses held elsewhere. Let us face it there is a very competitive market in export education. Back in 1997-98 we were trying to make that industry worth $1 billion per year—it is already worth $2 billion per year. The Australians are in the industry in a big way as are the Americans and the Canadians. In Britain the Government is subsiding and supporting the industry in a big way. New Zealand is actually pretty late off the block in that respect. 
When this levy was debated previously—and I said there was a lot of opposition to it—one of the problems mentioned was the fact that the providers were not necessarily opposed to an export education levy but were opposed to the purposes it would be put to. They did not necessarily accept that an export education levy should be used to give scholarships for example or agree with a number of the other purposes it would be used for. This part now states that if any money is left over from the levy and is not spent on the purposes outlined in the bill—and let us remember that it is money that has been levied on students—it can be used for some other purpose that is not stated in the bill. This part really is untidy. It leaves New Zealand First with a great feeling of discomfort about the whole progress of the legislation around the export education levy. Therefore that explains why New Zealand First will continue to oppose this legislation as it goes through Parliament.
Cullen Michael: Points of Order — National Party Leadership 
Cullen Michael: Points of Order — National Party Leadership 
[Volume:613;Page:9621] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. As Leader of the House I just wish to make it clear that we do not have enough time to do that every time the National Party changes its leader.
Vote: Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:625;Page:20257] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 8 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 111 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 9 
ACT New Zealand 9. 
Schedule 8 as amended agreed to.
Wilson Margaret: Minimum Wage Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Wilson Margaret: Minimum Wage Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:608;Page:6030] 
Hon MARGARET WILSON (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the Minimum Wage Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
. The bill provides protections to trainee employees who are currently exempt from minimum wage protections and can in theory be paid very little or even nothing for the work they do while they are in training. The bill does this by removing the minimum wage exemption in the principal Act for employees who are trainees and in its place allows for a minimum training wage to be set for those employees. The changes the bill makes are based on the principle of ensuring there is payment of a socially acceptable minimum wage to industry trainees while encouraging training. This will provide a basic equitable floor from which employers and trainee employees can negotiate a fair level of pay. 
The bill provides for the level of the minimum training wage to be set by regulation as is done with the adult and youth minimum wage rates. The training wage rate that will be set will be the same rate as the youth minimum wage which currently is $6.80 an hour. 
 Eligibility criteria for the minimum training wage will be the same as those that currently cause a trainee to be exempt from the minimum wage. An employee will need to be undertaking training within the national qualifications framework of at least 60 credits per year. All other employees including those training outside the national qualifications framework will need to be paid the applicable minimum wage based on their age. This further protects employees who are new to jobs and still learning the ropes but who are not undergoing training towards the national qualification. 
The changes this bill makes will not affect the vast majority of employers who pay their trainee employees above the minimum wage. The object is not to add undue cost to employers who engage in fair and productive employment practices while training employees. Rather it is to provide a potentially vulnerable section of New Zealand’s workforce with the statutory right to be fairly remunerated bringing them into the current framework of protections that other employees already enjoy. 
I believe that this bill lays the foundation for a strong and positive training environment where both employer and employee receive worthwhile benefits for participating in training. At the same time it brings industry trainees within the general framework of minimum wage protection giving them the opportunity to do a decent day’s work for a fair day’s pay.
Peck Mark: Land Transport Management Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Peck Mark: Land Transport Management Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:613;Page:9663] 
MARK PECK (Labour—Invercargill) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Cullen Michael: Urgent Debates Declined — Influenza—Vaccination Programme 
Cullen Michael: Urgent Debates Declined — Influenza—Vaccination Programme 
[Volume:624;Page:19167] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Furthermore as I indicated before I seek leave for the votes on Government orders of the day 1 to 23 to be taken as one vote and for a debate to be held according to the standard rules on urgent debate on the matter raised by the two members.
Vote: Land Transport (Unauthorised Street and Drag Racing) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Land Transport (Unauthorised Street and Drag Racing) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:607;Page:4598] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
that the schedule as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 97 
Noes 17 
Schedule as amended agreed to. 
Labour 52; New Zealand National 24; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8. 
ACT New Zealand 8; Green Party 9.
Copeland Gordon: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Copeland Gordon: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Sitting date: 15 October 2003. Volume:612;Page:9183. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
4.  
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Regulations Review Committee 
: How many submissions have been received to date on the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 2)? 
RICHARD WORTH (Chairperson of the Regulations Review Committee): 
 The committee has received five submissions on the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 2). 
Gordon Copeland 
: In light of his answer to the primary question can the chairman tell the House when public submissions to the bill will close? 
RICHARD WORTH 
: Submissions closed on the bill on 26 September 2003.
Vote: Children’s Commissioner Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Children’s Commissioner Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:613;Page:9903] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments to the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 82 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 34 
New Zealand National 25; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendments to the amendments agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments as amended set out on Supplementary Order Paper 116 in the name of the Hon Steve Maharey to the schedules be agreed to.
Hodgson Pete: Electricity and Gas Industries Bill — First Reading 
Hodgson Pete: Electricity and Gas Industries Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:613;Page:9833] 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Energy) 
: 
 I move  
That the Commerce Committee consider the Electricity and Gas Industries Bill and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time when the House is sitting except during questions for oral answer and during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House despite Standing Orders 193 and 196(1)(b) and (c). 
 referred to the Commerce Committee
Carter David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Carter David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:607;Page:4287] 
Hon DAVID CARTER (NZ National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. When I submitted this question this morning I specifically wanted to know the opinion of the Minister of Health Annette King. I note now that it has been changed to the Associate Minister. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is the right of the Government and that must be the responsibility he has been delegated by the Minister. Please ask the question.
Mallard Trevor: General Debates 
Mallard Trevor: General Debates 
[Volume:609;Page:6569] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 I was making clear to the House that there is inconsistency in the behaviour of Mr Brownlee—his criticism of anyone who is brown and has rights to the foreshore yet his condoning of the Riddiford family major funders of the National Party who have exactly those rights presently. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member was getting into debatable points there. The point is that a comment was made and objection was not taken to it at the time. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I have ruled.
Carter John: Prostitution Reform Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Carter John: Prostitution Reform Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:607;Page:4452] 
JOHN CARTER (Senior Whip—NZ National) 
: 
 Just to reiterate in case Mr Brown missed it each member has a right of up to four contributions at least. I suspect that the Committee would probably be lenient if a member felt he or she needed to make a fifth or sixth contribution. Leave would probably be granted. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: That can always be done by leave. Has everybody who wanted to speak to that point spoken? The first part of Mr Carter’s putting the leave was that the title debate be wide ranging. Is there any objection to that leave? There is not. Mr Carter then sought leave that there be a wide-ranging debate on the rest of the bill followed by the remaining votes and in so saying the discussion that has gone on here in the spirit of dealing with this. Is there any objection? There is not.
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Withdrawal from Chamber—Hon Judith Tizard 
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Withdrawal from Chamber—Hon Judith Tizard 
[Volume:613;Page:9637] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. There is some interest in the issue of the Hon Judith Tizard. You said that at the conclusion of question time you would deal with the matter. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I said I would do so when she returned to the House. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: OK. That is all right.
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
[Volume:623;Page:18313] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I have two questions for the Leader of the House. I notice that a number of the bills being advanced under some priority next week and likely to be concluded a short time after that featured heavily in the Prime Minister’s statement. What does he expect the House to be doing for much of the rest of the year? Secondly will the action being brought against the Government by Unitec see the legislative track for the Education (Trustee Ineligibility) Amendment Bill which is known as the “Unitec bill” altered in any way at all?
Peters Winston: Points of Order — Question No. 4 to Minister—Minister Answering  
Peters Winston: Points of Order — Question No. 4 to Minister—Minister Answering  
[Volume:619;Page:14719] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 That is true but what about that phone over there? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will be examining that when I come to look at it—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Hon Member 
: But there is not one there. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am sure that that has been correctly pointed out to members and now having been advised of that I advise Mr Peters that there is not a phone there.
Cullen Michael: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Cullen Michael: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:620;Page:15467] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Clearly the Prime Minister did attempt to obtain an answer yesterday which Sovereign Yachts was not prepared to supply. For whatever reason Sovereign Yachts was prepared to supply it today. I suppose Sovereign Yachts like sovereigns may change its mind from day to day.
Cunliffe David: Holidays Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Cunliffe David: Holidays Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:620;Page:15978] 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of State) 
: 
 I rise to take a short call in favour of this bill. It is about correcting an unintended consequence that may have arisen out of the original drafting of the bill. Let me restate that the Government remains committed to the principle that if people work on a public holiday they deserve to get some recompense for that and of course we are here to defend the principle that 4 weeks’ annual leave should be a minimum for all workers not just parliamentarians. 
This bill brings to the House the work of a joint working-group of employers and unions that was set up to look at issues arising out of the Holidays Act. It found an unintended consequence and it is the same consequence that the National Party had objected to. The bill corrects it and so National opposes it. Let me say that again. There is an unintended consequence that National objects to; the bill corrects it so National opposes it. It seems to me that that is proof positive as if anybody in this House and indeed anybody in the nation needed another demonstration that National has a political death wish. National knows that most New Zealanders are proud of the spirit of fairness and decency that says a person who is a wage labourer with a family deserves 4 weeks’ holiday in the same way that some upper middle-class— 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: There is nothing to do with the 4 weeks in this bill. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: We are defending the 4 weeks principle and we are making sure that it works as intended. This bill corrects an unintended consequence that the party the member belongs to objected to—and he opposes the bill. Mr Williamson is without logic not unusually on this point. National Party members get themselves deeper and deeper into trouble. They cannot help themselves. They oppose provisions that are harmonised with Australia’s yet they go on about wanting harmonisation with Australia. Aussies get 4 weeks’ annual leave. But Don Brash said he would repeal that. That is part of the reason National opposes this bill as well. 
I say ladies and gentlemen members and the listening public the National members are contradicting themselves and like possums in the headlights they can see the third term of the Government coming at them. They have a political death wish and they are proving that again today.
Perry Edwin: Independent Police Complaints Authority Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Perry Edwin: Independent Police Complaints Authority Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:606;Page:3677] 
EDWIN PERRY (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First supports the introduction of the Independent Police Complaints Authority Amendment Bill but there are some concerns and I am happy to go through them. Firstly the Police Complaints Authority plays a very important role. We wish to ensure that it is as independent as possible. We believe the public are entitled to have an independent watchdog to supervise as guardian of the police. All we want to say about the representation that has been put before us in this bill is we should make sure that it is still within this area and that there are no jobs for the boys. That is a very important part and whoever are the representatives they should be in there for the right reasons. 
Brian Connell 
: Selected on merit. 
EDWIN PERRY 
: They should be selected on merit as my fellow MP has just mentioned. We know there are serious problems within the police force such as deaths in cells and complaints the public have presented to the police not being carried out in the right manner. I am sure the public are entitled to make sure their complaints are treated correctly and the right answer is derived from their complaint. Cases in history have shown us there is possible corruption within the police force. In the Arthur Allan Thomas case history has told us the shell case was planted and the result of that obviously cost Arthur Allan Thomas 9 years of his life. He was acquitted and was paid out a large sum of money. If we look at the police force off shore Australia has experienced police corruption at its highest. It nearly destroyed the New South Wales police force and to get over its problems New South Wales had to go to England to engage a Police Commissioner Ryan to pull its police out of its doldrums and restore public confidence.  
That is a reasonable complaint here within New Zealand. The police are not held in high regard in some areas and their self-esteem and image have been damaged. With regard to the police in Masterton which is where I am from there are issues within that police force that need to be attended to. I am sure this independent complaints authority will sort out some of the problems affecting the public in the Wairarapa district—and not only there but also within the central district of the Wellington region. I sit on the central police liaison board and complaints have come in that would raise the hairs on the back of one’s neck. They are not very nice. [ 
Interruption 
] Some are about Labour but most are about the police force. The racial overtones within the police system need to be corrected.  
Like other speakers who have laid their concerns out I believe this bill is overdue. We will watch the passage of this bill as it goes through the House and we will ensure the right ingredients are put into it for the safety of all New Zealanders and to build the self-esteem of the police force again.
Rich Katherine: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Rich Katherine: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:618;Page:13915] 
KATHERINE RICH (National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. With the Associate Minister answering that last question while he spent some time talking about the validity of my assertions my actual question was about whether he accepted that some New Zealanders are struggling to see how the assessment could be deemed correct—which ties into questions earlier in the week. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There is no responsibility for the Minister to answer that part of the question but I thought he did give an answer.
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 question be now put. 
Ayes 69 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 141 in the name of the Hon Judith Tizard to clause 58 be agreed to.
Mahuta Nanaia: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Mahuta Nanaia: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:613;Page:10138] 
1.  
NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Tainui) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What steps is he taking to lift student achievement through improved teacher development? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
Best evidence research released earlier this year found that the quality of teaching was the major factor in improving student achievement. Today I announced funding of $1 million for 13 research projects in this area. The projects range from effective teaching in different cultural contexts through to information technology numeracy and comprehension.  
Hon Nanaia Mahuta 
: Why is improving student achievement in areas such as numeracy and comprehension so important? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: We want all New Zealanders to be able to do their numbers and to comprehend what is happening in the world around them. I have received recent reports that suggest that at least some New Zealanders appear to be able to do their numbers one week but not the next. It is particularly concerning that the ability to consistently count from one to 14 appears to be beyond the grasp of some people but then it is hard to count when someone is stealing your stuffed dummies. [ 
Interruption 
]  
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not need the member shouting. I am well aware of that fact. [ 
Interruption 
] That is all right. It is his first day in his position and I am prepared to be generous. 
Simon Power 
: How is teacher development being improved when the Government’s flagship for ethics and professionalism the New Zealand Teachers Council saw the Minister sack its first chairperson Kathy Irwin; its second chairperson Stan Rodger left in June after just a year; its director Margaret Kouvelis resigned on 10 October; the Minister installed a crisis team earlier this year; and one of its other core jobs creating a code of ethics for teachers has still not been completed? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: It is fair to say that progress as far as the Teachers Council has been disappointing to date.
Hide Rodney: Tabling of Documents — Sky Videotape 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Hide Rodney: Tabling of Documents — Sky Videotape 
[Sitting date: 19 June 2003. Volume:609;Page:6432. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
RODNEY HIDE (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I want to help the House. There has been a discussion and maybe the Hon Dover Samuels would like to seek leave again to table the video of the game involving Hemana Waaka for all of us to share in and enjoy our loss. I am sure that leave would be granted. Or maybe some honourable member will seek leave on his behalf. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Anyone can seek leave but Mr Samuels is not here. The Hon Dr Michael Cullen seeks leave. Is there any objection? There is not. 
Videotape by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Benson-Pope David: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
Benson-Pope David: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:15597] 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister of Fisheries) 
: 
 I am pleased to take a brief call first of all to address the issue of the complexity of the legislation which has been mentioned by three speakers today. It is important to reinforce publicly the reasons for that complexity. As the previous speaker has just said this debate has gone on for 12 or 13 years. One of the reasons for the complexity both in the legislation and in the management regime is to provide the protections that iwi themselves considered appropriate in terms of the governance and allocation structures. 
I think that some of the comment made in the previous debate last week and again in the session so far this afternoon has been a little short of the mark. I respect the work that the select committee did and I will talk more about that in the third reading but let no one in the Chamber forget that the complexity of this legislation is for one reason and one reason alone—those people who are the beneficiaries of these assets have made it very clear that those protections are required by them. 
In respect of the comments made by my colleague Minister Tamihere earlier I am happy to reinforce the interpretation and the comments he made about the purpose of Te PuteaWhakatupu Trust. Indeed it is a wide purpose. Its prime purpose is education training and research and in a secondary way it is clearly able to involve matters that are fisheries specific but that detracts in no way from the prime purpose of that operation.
Choudhary Ashraf: Social Workers Registration Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Choudhary Ashraf: Social Workers Registration Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:607;Page:4860] 
Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (NZ Labour) 
: 
 I compliment my colleague Steve Maharey on this excellent bill which will improve the accountability of social workers and improve social services. I am delighted to support the bill.
Vote: Television New Zealand Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Television New Zealand Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:606;Page:3829] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 5 as amended stand part. 
Ayes 68 
Noes 48 
Part 5 as amended agreed to. 
Labour 52; Green Party 8; United Future 8. 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8.