edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Peters Winston: Points of Order — Electoral Act—Debate on Report of Privileges Committee 
Peters Winston: Points of Order — Electoral Act—Debate on Report of Privileges Committee 
[Volume:610;Page:7896] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The problem with that answer is that members of this Parliament and any future members of Parliament will not know what the precedent is with regard to such a matter or any similar matter that goes to the Speaker’s office. In my view there was always going to be a window in time where the Speaker had to give his decision and I said so at the time and during the debate. Your ruling on 23 July stated that you would wait upon the Privileges Committee and the House with regard to this issue. It cannot be that because the Government has a device available to it that enables it to alter the outcome of this matter no question ever arose before you as Speaker. To assert that is really to make an argument so narrow as to be ridiculous. There was always a time during this issue where the Speaker would have had to say that he had found that there was a breach but events had overtaken it and therefore it was of no future moment; or that there was no breach. But there cannot be no decision at all so that anyone studying this issue is no wiser today as to what the proper course for the Speaker would be what ruling to follow or what precedent should be taken into account than that person was before the event happened. I am putting the position in the most reasonable fashion. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 Mr Speaker I wish you to consider my concern about the reputation of Parliament and indeed the Speakership. When you look at  
Hansard 
 you will see that you have publicly told this House not once but repeatedly that you have sent the Duynhoven issue to the Privileges Committee because you wanted to hear from that committee. You then publicly told the House not once but repeatedly that once that debate was over you would rule. You did not say that you would not rule if the Government legislated. In fact you gave the House your word that you were not colluding with the Government that you were not taking any notice of the legislation and that after the Privileges Committee had completed its debate and made a decision and you had heard from the House you would give a ruling. I say to you that you are honour-bound from the point of view of your reputation to give that ruling. It may be a ruling that the Government and Mr Duynhoven might not like but that is not a reason not to give it. The fact that it is now hypothetical is not a reason for the Speaker to withdraw a commitment he has given to the House. I am calling on you to honour the word you gave to me and every other MP that you would now rule.
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Messages from Governor-General 
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Messages from Governor-General 
[Volume:617;Page:13450] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I wonder whether you could tell us at what time today the Government sent the message to Dame Silvia Cartwright telling her that she needed to make this recommendation. The House only started working on this bill at 5 o’clock today. Certainly a few hours have since passed but it seems rather unacceptable that the Governor-General should be making a recommendation to the House about 30 seconds after the bill has passed its first reading. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the honourable member for his contribution and say that it is only a recommendation. At what time the Government makes a decision with the Governor-General is a matter for the Government. The House can always reject the bill. At what time the Government receives the message is no business of the Speaker.
Vote: Employment Relations Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Employment Relations Law Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:16149] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 63 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 273 in the name of Dr Wayne Mapp to section 65A in clause 26 be agreed to.
Ogilvy Bernie: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Transitional Provisions and Controls) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee  
Ogilvy Bernie: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Transitional Provisions and Controls) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee  
[Volume:616;Page:11756] 
BERNIE OGILVY (United Future) 
: 
 I stand to support this Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Transitional Provisions and Controls) Bill on behalf of the United Future Party. This bill has many features in it and I think the intention all the way through has been to make it more user-friendly. One or two members have already spoken in this session about some of the confusion in terms of detail which the Minister has been able to give us some certainty about. We were bandying around all sorts of figures in the select committee and I am sure people were trying to clarify that to us but none of us could get it all together at the time. So we are sorry but now we are clearer and getting some of the history of it in the detail has helped to make it not so confusing. 
I think too and it has been well pointed out that some of the time constraints we were under added to that. I felt we were under real pressure and the chair of the Education and Science Committee has certainly made that point strongly. However some features in here are encouraging and I would like to touch on one or two of those—certainly the one dealing with the delegation by authority. I think this is a very good way of trying to get that large number down to zero by June 2006. I believe that is the intention of these transitional provisions. So to delegate authority out to employees of any person specified in section 97 of the principal Act or any enforcement officer with relevant experience I believe is a very very good idea to speed the process of getting these many thousands of notified toxic substances completely under control. 
Another feature that I thought was good and essential to the cost-effectiveness of the whole programme as well related to the appeals that exist. I noted when I was going through the bill that it was very good to see a provision in here for appeals at the District Court level. That is another means of speeding up the process with less heavy costs through other types of court procedures and legal costs. So I am very happy with that. I find it also encouraging that there are in the bill certain exemptions from regulations and these are as I understand it to grant a further speedy action to ensure that these hazardous substances will get through on and by the date and month in the year 2006. So I would just mention those few points as encouraging at this stage and repeat that United Future supports this bill through the Committee stage.
Vote: Relationships (Statutory References) Bill; AND BILLS THEREFROM — Third Readings 
Vote: Relationships (Statutory References) Bill; AND BILLS THEREFROM — Third Readings 
[Volume:624;Page:19198] 
A personal vote was called for on the question  
That the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 4) be now read a third time. 
Ayes 76 
Anderton(P) 
Duynhoven (P) 
Laban(P) 
Samuels(P) 
Barker(P) 
Dyson(P) 
Locke (P) 
Shirley(P) 
Barnett (P) 
Ewen-Street(P) 
Mackey J (P) 
Simich(P) 
Benson-Pope(P) 
Fairbrother(P) 
Mackey M 
Sowry(P) 
Beyer   
Fitzsimons(P) 
Maharey(P) 
Sutton(P) 
Bradford(P) 
Gallagher(P) 
Mahuta(P) 
Swain(P) 
Burton(P) 
Goff(P) 
Mallard(P) 
Tamihere(P) 
Carter C (P) 
Gosche(P) 
Mapp(P) 
Tanczos(P) 
Chadwick(P) 
Hartley(P) 
Mark(P) 
Tizard (P) 
Choudhary(P) 
Hawkins(P) 
McCully(P) 
Turei(P) 
Clark(P) 
Hereora(P) 
O'Connor(P) 
Ward(P) 
Coddington(P) 
Hide(P) 
Okeroa(P) 
Williamson(P) 
Cosgrove(P) 
Hobbs   
Parker(P) 
Wilson(P) 
Cullen(P) 
Hodgson(P) 
Peck(P) 
Wong(P) 
Cunliffe(P) 
Horomia(P) 
Pillay(P) 
Yates   
Dalziel(P) 
Hughes(P) 
Rich(P) 
Donald(P) 
Hunt(P) 
Ririnui(P) 
Donnelly   
Kedgley(P) 
Robertson(P) 
Duncan(P) 
Key(P) 
Robson(P) 
Teller: 
Dunne(P) 
King(P) 
Roy(P) 
Pettis   
Noes 44 
Adams (P) 
Copeland(P) 
Ogilvy(P) 
te Heuheu(P) 
Alexander(P) 
Eckhoff(P) 
Paraone(P) 
Tisch (P) 
Ardern(P) 
English(P) 
Perry(P) 
Turia(P) 
Baldock(P) 
Field   
Peters J (P) 
Turner   
Brash(P) 
Franks   
Peters W (P) 
Wang(P) 
Brown (P) 
Goudie(P) 
Power(P) 
Woolerton(P) 
Brownlee(P) 
Gudgeon(P) 
Prebble(P) 
Worth(P) 
Carter D (P) 
Heatley(P) 
Ryall(P) 
Carter J (P) 
Hutchison(P) 
Smith L (P) 
Catchpole (P) 
Jones (P) 
Smith M (P) 
Collins(P) 
McNair(P) 
Smith N (P) 
Teller: 
Connell(P) 
Newman(P) 
Stewart(P) 
Scott 
Bill read a third time.
Barnett Tim: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Barnett Tim: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:623;Page:18669] 
9.  
TIM BARNETT (Labour—Christchurch Central) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: Is he satisfied that New Zealand laws sufficiently protect this country against money-laundering and financing of terrorism? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 Not entirely. New Zealand has in place laws that deal with money-laundering and financing of terrorism. Indeed it is not clear that New Zealand is being targeted by international groups involved in these activities. However because of our largely deregulated financial system there are potential loopholes in our laws which require closing if we are to meet strict international requirements and to deal with local groups that may be seeking to launder money. The Government has therefore announced today a number of proposals that will tighten the laws in this regard. 
Tim Barnett 
: What action is the Minister taking to tighten these anti-terrorism laws? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The action taken is with regard to both money-laundering and the potential financing of terrorism. We are drawing up legislative and other measures that will put in place a monitoring framework to ensure that all financial institutions comply with standards to counter money-laundering and terrorist financing. These will include a registration regime for people providing money-transfer or currency-change services; statutory requirements for internal anti - money-laundering systems and procedures; and requirements to verify and retain information concerning the identity of originators of wire transfers of finance. 
Tim Barnett 
: When does the Minister expect these measures to be in place? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: In regard to money-laundering there is an inter-agency working-group that is being chaired by the Ministry of Justice and it will shortly undertake consultation with the financial sector on anti - money-laundering compliance monitoring frameworks and a registration regime. It will report back to the Government by the end of April. In regard to terrorism members will be aware that the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill which broadens and tightens the laws against terrorist financing was introduced in the House last week and is currently before a select committee.
Vote: Counter-Terrorism Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Vote: Counter-Terrorism Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:9373] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 3 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 100 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8. 
Noes 17 
ACT New Zealand 8; Green Party 9. 
Part 3 as amended agreed to.
Smith Lockwood: Supreme Court Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Smith Lockwood: Supreme Court Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:9003] 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (NZ National—Rodney) 
: 
 I want to make these points very quickly. I have been quietly listening to this debate on a hugely important issue for New Zealand. The first thing I noticed is that this bill has been drafted in two parts. To curtail the debate to just two parts on something so important is shocking. As I look at the purpose of the Supreme Court Bill I am shocked. I would have thought that the purpose of what is proposed as the highest court of this land—
Points of Order — Members' Bills—Leave to Introduce 
Points of Order — Members' Bills—Leave to Introduce 
[Volume:627;Page:21953] 
Points of Order 
Members' Bills—Leave to Introduce 
ROD DONALD (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I seek leave to introduce the Zimbabwe Sporting Sanction Bill and have it set down for its first reading forthwith. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to introduce that bill. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. The bill will not be introduced.
Wong Pansy: Motions — Dr John Hood 
Wong Pansy: Motions — Dr John Hood 
[Volume:609;Page:6543] 
PANSY WONG (NZ National) 
: 
 I move  
That this House congratulates Dr John Hood on his appointment to the position of Vice-Chancellor of Oxford University the first outsider to hold this position in the university’s 900-year history; notes that Dr Hood has made a considerable contribution to New Zealand in both business and academia particularly through his current role as Vice-Chancellor of Auckland University and as a result of his chairmanship of the Knowledge Wave Conference in which he has prompted a national dialogue on the future direction of our country; recognises that Dr Hood is a New Zealander who shows a real passion for and commitment to his country; and wishes him well. 
Motion agreed to.
Carter John: Border Security Bill — In Committee 
Carter John: Border Security Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:618;Page:13748] 
JOHN CARTER (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 Mr Chairperson I sense that you have accepted the motion and I am not disputing that in any way. I wonder whether I could perhaps seek the Committee’s indulgence on a special occasion. Given that Mrs Ardern Shane’s mother is in the gallery and has come to see her son perform I wonder whether the Committee may by leave—and I seek leave for this—allow Mr Ardern to make a 5-minute contribution so that Mrs Ardern can watch her son perform and continue the pride that she has in him. I so seek leave. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Leave has been sought. Is there any objection to that course? There is not.
Gosche Mark: Retirement Villages Bill — Second Reading 
Gosche Mark: Retirement Villages Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:7033] 
Hon MARK GOSCHE (NZ Labour—Maungakiekie) 
: This bill is about balancing the sometimes but not always competing interests of the residents and the operators of retirement villages. I believe that the balance provided in the bill is pretty well right. It is interesting to note that those who face retirement much more imminently make lengthy speeches; those of us who do not have to worry about it too much are happy to sit down.
Visitors — Socialist Republic of Viet Nam—Delegation from the Economic and Budget Committee 
Visitors — Socialist Republic of Viet Nam—Delegation from the Economic and Budget Committee 
[Volume:623;Page:18863] 
Visitors 
Socialist Republic of Viet Nam—Delegation from the Economic and Budget Committee 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing members that a delegation from the Economic and Budget Committee of the National Assembly of the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam is present in the gallery. I am sure that members would wish that the delegation be welcomed.
Vote: Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4) — Procedure 
Vote: Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4) — Procedure 
[Volume:614;Page:10762] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Motion agreed to.
Eckhoff Gerrard: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 2) — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Eckhoff Gerrard: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 2) — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:616;Page:11696] 
GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT) 
: 
 Part 2 is not so much a question of things not being fair which Mr Ian Ewen-Street tried to suggest by way ofanalogy—of tenants renting a house and not knowing until they had moved out that they had been overcharged and the landlord saying he would remedy that by lowering the rent for the incoming tenants. But I have a better analogy. Some members of AMP or Colonial Mutual Assurance sold their shares and then a couple of weeks later the company demutualised and those people missed out. Was that fair? Absolutely not. But it is a reality and people just accept it. It is life. It is all about hard knocks. We do not live in a perfect world but if we did maybe there could have been some redress for those people who were unfortunate enough to sell their shares in those companies before they demutualised. The reality is that they did miss out. It is unfortunate and I suspect that my analogy is probably slightly more relevant Mr Ian Ewen-Street’s analogy. But that is a matter of opinion. 
This issue is all about the fishing industry moving forward. There have been some real messes and some real problems. We cannot help but reflect that two Government departments—not so much the industry—are basically responsible for this bill. They caused the mess. The Department of Conservation was meant to perform a duty. It did not do it. The ministry should have been benchmarking or showing that it had some performance but there was a total lack of performance and a total lack of accountability by two Government departments. That is the real issue here and that is why the ACT party is saying that industry and individuals are far better at running their industry than Governments or bureaucracies or councils or whatever. The rights of the individual and the property right that is attached to that will ensure that fairness is ultimately spread right across the board. People understand the rules and reflect that in their day-to-day lives. But as long as we have these huge bureaucracies trying to dominate industries we will always have the anomalies that come along from time to time. 
That does not mean to say that we in the ACT party do not sympathise with those who have paid levies for years and got nothing back. Of course we have understanding and some sympathy but it seems to me that the $24.1 million going back into the fishing industry is about addressing what I can fairly describe as a public good versus a private good. If we decided that we would individualise the $24 million and give it back to the others it would start the whole accounting process all over again. It seems to me that the Seafood Industry Council has negotiated a reasonable deal notwithstanding the fact that there are individual fishers who justifiably feel aggrieved. But like everything else as I said earlier nothing in this life is ever totally fair and I believe that the select committee did the right thing.
Mark Ron: Points of Order — Privileges of the House and Speaker’s Actions 
Mark Ron: Points of Order — Privileges of the House and Speaker’s Actions 
[Volume:611;Page:8605] 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. In reflecting on both those submissions to you could I also ask your assurance that you as Speaker had no part in the decision back in 1999 when a member had been admitted to this House with charges outstanding—she was I understand facing charges of trespass on parliamentary property—which were subsequently withdrawn by the police and not pursued. I would like an absolute assurance that that decision was made by the Minister of Police the Commissioner of Police or whoever was in charge—and that you in no way had any bearing at all on the withdrawing of those charges Sue Bradford was facing as a result of her conduct here in Parliament.
Vote: Supplementary Estimates — Imprest Supply Debate 
Vote: Supplementary Estimates — Imprest Supply Debate 
[Volume:618;Page:13824] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Appropriation (2003/04 Supplementary Estimates) Bill and the Imprest Supply (First for 2004/05) Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 51; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 58 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Bills read a second time.
Voting — Correction 
Voting — Correction 
[Volume:613;Page:10127] 
Voting 
Correction 
MURRAY SMITH (United Future) 
: 
 On the third reading of the Children’s Commissioner Bill United Future voted 8 in favour. I seek the leave of the House to correct that vote to 7 in favour. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Leave has been sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. The vote is so amended.
Brash Don: Motions — Confidence Motion—Government 
Brash Don: Motions — Confidence Motion—Government 
[Volume:617;Page:12539] 
Dr DON BRASH (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 Noting the growing instability in the Government I seek leave of the House to move a motion of no confidence forthwith.
Fitzsimons Jeanette: Securities Legislation Bill — First Reading 
Fitzsimons Jeanette: Securities Legislation Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:622;Page:18047] 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 The Green Party supports this bill going to the select committee. We look forward to the debate that will occur there and the submissions it will receive. 
Members spend a lot of time in this House working ourselves into a lather to see who can be toughest on the sorts of crimes that are committed by the marginalised and deprived in this society but I think it is just as important that we have equally stringent rules for those who have every advantage but who nevertheless take advantage of other people and commit crimes involving very large amounts of money. No doubt there will be a lot of debate at the select committee as to what is the best way to do it. I found the points that Stephen Franks made very interesting and we look forward to further debate.
Hunt Jonathan: Naming and Suspension of Member 
Hunt Jonathan: Naming and Suspension of Member 
[Volume:609;Page:6636] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The only comment I would make to Mr Sowry is that twice today before any point of order I intervened and insisted that the Minister answer and he acknowledges that point. I will endeavour to do that in the future.
Mallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members Questions to Ministers 
Mallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:615;Page:11504] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Can I ask you to ask the member for Clutha-Southland whether he intends to table the document that he described because he has not.
Vote: Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:610;Page:7780] 
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 50; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Abstentions 1 
Hunt. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Dail Jones to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit the words “with the close of polling day for the first general election held after the date on which this Act comes into force” and substitute the words “on the day after this Act receives its Royal assent”.
Simich Clem: Voting — Correction; General Debates 
Simich Clem: Voting — Correction; General Debates 
[Volume:608;Page:5702] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I thank Mr Shirley for assisting me. The member was speaking so vigorously that I did not hear the comment. But the comment has been heard and the member indicates that it was said. I ask the member to withdraw and apologise. 
David Benson-Pope 
: I withdraw and apologise.
Vote: Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8733] 
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. 
Part 5 agreed to. 
Progress reported.
Vote: Gambling Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Vote: Gambling Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8488] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Noes 71 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 110 in the name of Lindsay Tisch to clause 121(7) be agreed to.
Gosche Mark: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Gosche Mark: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:624;Page:19555] 
3.  
Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie) 
 to the  
Minister of Transport 
: What progress is being made on toll-funded roads since the passage of the Land Transport Management Act 2003? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 The Land Transport Management Act is the sort of Act one passes when one wants to build roads. Yesterday Cabinet approved the construction of the northern extension to State Highway 1 from Orewa to Puhoi as a toll road under that Act. 
Hon Mark Gosche 
: What other reports has the Minister seen on plans to fund roads? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I have seen one other report of a plan to strip $4 billion out of the Crown account that is already being used to offset roading-related costs with no mention of the service cuts or debt increases that would be necessary to fill in the black hole created. That is nothing more than smoke and mirrors and if my bank manager suggested it he would be gone by lunchtime. 
Larry Baldock 
: Does the Minister agree that the recently released  
Surface Transport Costs and Charges Study 
 provided some evidence that general taxation was subsidising the road network and therefore gave considerable support to the policy of allowing some much-needed additions to our roading network through toll funding and does he agree with that; if he does is he grateful for United Future’s support for the Land Transport Management Bill which was passed? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Yes and yes. 
Peter Brown 
: My noting those answers will the Minister explain why he believes as he stated to the Automobile Association conference that it is reasonable to borrow money to pay for a tolled road which can produce uncertain income but it is totally unacceptable to borrow against future income generated from road-user charges vehicle registration fees and fuel tax which produce certain income; will the Minister explain his philosophy? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I did not say that. I said that if one is going to borrow to build a road one needs to be able to have a revenue stream to service the loan. That revenue stream cannot be something as ethereal as economic expansion.
Event: Members Sworn 
Event: Members Sworn 
[Volume:622;Page:17213] 
Members Sworn 
Kenneth Wang was presented to the Speaker made the affirmation required by law and took his seat in the House.
Retirement Villages Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH 
Retirement Villages Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH 
[Volume:610;Page:7874] 
Retirement Villages Bill 
Instruction to CommitteeCWH 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Retirement Villages Bill that it take the bill part by part and consider any schedules as one question. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 71 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Motion agreed to.
Benson-Pope David: Supreme Court Bill — In Committee 
Benson-Pope David: Supreme Court Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:9067] 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (Senior Whip—NZ Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
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:21016] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the report be adopted. 
Ayes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; United Future 8; Maori Party 1. 
Report adopted.
Woolerton R Doug: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Woolerton R Doug: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:609;Page:6479] 
12.  
R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First) 
 to the  
Convenor Ministerial Group on Climate Change 
: What feedback has he received from stakeholders within the agricultural sector on the planned levy mechanism outlined in the  
Agricultural Emissions Research Funding 
 discussion document released last week? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Convenor Ministerial Group on Climate Change) 
: 
 The discussion document seeks comment by 1 August. No formal comment on the proposed levy mechanism has yet been received. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: When will the Minister stop labelling and insulting farmers and listen to their concerns rather than pushing forth regardless with a commitment to an international agreement that many of our major trading partners have chosen not to ratify? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I have been listening to farmers’ concerns for many years and chief amongst them is how to improve productivity. 
Mark Peck 
: What level of funding has the agriculture sector voluntarily committed to research and to reducing its emissions? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Private sector investment by the  Pastoral Greenhouse Gas Research Consortium amounts to $0.8 million a year. 
Hon David Carter 
: How does the Minister equate the fairness of confiscating farmers’ greenhouse gas credits yet levelling a tax on their greenhouse gas emissions? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Farmers do not have greenhouse gas credits.
Tizard Judith: Health (Screening Programmes) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Tizard Judith: Health (Screening Programmes) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:606;Page:3510] 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Minister of Consumer Affairs) 
: 
 I rise to support the first reading of the Health (Screening Programmes) Amendment Bill with particular feeling as 10 years ago I was one of the hundreds of women whose lives have been saved by the cancer screening programme. It is a difficult realisation for people to come to—particularly for those who have been careful with their health and have been undergoing regular checks—when a doctor reports to them that they have cancer. It is a shocking time and most of us would do anything we could to avoid it. However having read the report of the Cartwright inquiry back in 1988 and parts of Dr Euphemia McGoogan’s report recently on the problems in the Gisborne region I think that this bill is necessary. It is timely and it is an important step ahead in improving the cervical screening programme for New Zealand women. 
People here have talked about the right to privacy and I am reminded of a woman who was in the same ward as I was at Greenlane Hospital 10 years ago who when I asked her what was wrong with her said she was “dying of embarrassment”. This was a woman who had children and who was looking forward to the birth of her first granddaughter. Because she was too embarrassed to go to the doctor and too embarrassed to follow up the physical signs she was displaying the cancer in her cervix had spread to her bowel her liver and her breasts. I believe we have a duty to that woman and to the many other New Zealand women who have died early from a disease that is not always preventable but is to a large extent curable or treatable – although the treatment is dramatic painful and as other members have talked about it takes a lot of life choices away. I say to all those women that yes their right to privacy is important. This legislation proposes the right to opt out of the national cervical cancer register but I urge women not to just as I urge them to have regular screens so that they like I can look back 10 years later and say to the public health system in New Zealand: “Thank you for the excellent service that I and thousands like me have received.”  
This bill sets up a new standard for screening for the oversight and audit of screening and for the management of that vital information. It carries out the Government’s undertaking to implement the 46 recommendations that Dr Euphemia McGoogan proposed. I believe that we can congratulate ourselves on the great progress that has been made in this area but as with all areas there is always more to do. I look forward to this bill being thoroughly examined at the select committee and coming back speedily to the House. 
Bill read a first time and referred to the Health Committee. referred to the Health Committee
Vote: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8157] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; Green Party 9. 
Noes 60 
Labour 52; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 122 in the name of Pita Paraone to clause 116(2A) be agreed to
Clark Helen: Motions — Terrorism—Madrid Bombings 
Clark Helen: Motions — Terrorism—Madrid Bombings 
[Volume:616;Page:11627] 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 I move  
That this House condemn the brutal and senseless murder of over 200 people and the injuries inflicted on more than 1500 people in last Thursday’s terrorist train bombings in Madrid and convey our firm solidarity with and deep sympathy for the people and Government of Spain.  
I am sure that all New Zealanders share the sense of horror and disgust that we in Parliament have at what happened in Madrid and would want this House to communicate its great sadness to the Spanish people and to stand in solidarity with them at this time.
Vote: Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:6823] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a third time 
. 
Ayes 60 
Labour 52; United Future 8. 
Noes 55 
New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Green Party 9. 
Bill read a third time.
Pettis Jill: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) — First Reading 
Pettis Jill: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) — First Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12386] 
JILL PETTIS (Labour—Whanganui) 
: 
 I am pleased to rise in support of this bill and just want to mention a couple of aspects that the bill particularly refers to. Those are the revision of the current regime for authorising access to commercial fisheries and the removal of the permit moratorium that is currently in place which is unnecessarily impeding use. The bill also amends the legislation so that while the commercial fishing permit will remain the means of authorising access the restriction on issuing new permits will be lifted. There are many positives points within this bill and I think that is reflected by the member who has just resumed his seat in that there is support for it from across the House. The bill has been well considered up until this stage and the Primary Production Committee will be obviously reviewing it further and taking submissions on it. This bill is important to the industry. I am pleased to see it in the House and I look forward to its rapid passage.
Hunt Jonathan: Visitors — German Bundestag—Mr Steffen Kampeter 
Hunt Jonathan: Visitors — German Bundestag—Mr Steffen Kampeter 
[Volume:617;Page:12835] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing members that Mr Steffen Kampeter MP from the Bundestag of the Federal Republic of Germany is present in the gallery. I am sure members would wish he be welcomed.
Vote: Supreme Court Bill — Third Reading 
Vote: Supreme Court Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:612;Page:9121] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Supreme Court Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 8. 
Bill read a third time.
te Heuheu Georgina: Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill — In Committee 
te Heuheu Georgina: Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:16471] 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) 
: 
 I want to pick up on one of the three issues that my colleague Dr Mapp raised and that is the issue around the fact that a number of people have been left out of this bill. I think Dr Mapp made a good point when he said that it is typical that a Labour Government would look after those whom one terms as workers as against those who are self-employed. Of course that is the group of New Zealand taxpayers who quite clearly miss out on these provisions. One would have thought that the Government having introduced its paid parental leave provisions over 2 years—[ 
Interruption 
] This is Part 1 which covers quite a wide ambit and I am talking to Part 1. I would have thought that the Government would have endeavoured the second time around to make sure that any hint of discrimination was left out. 
I have said this before and I will say it again: if there is a principle that working people deserve to be supported by taxpayer funds upon the birth of children then that principle surely should stand good for everybody. Clearly if one looks at Part 1 it does not do that. As my colleague says— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Would the member focus on what is in Part 1 please. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU 
: Yes I am focusing on this. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I am sorry to interrupt my colleague but I have been listening very carefully to her speech and she has been focusing entirely on the purpose and the intent of this bill as contained in Part 1. I submit that you are unreasonably limiting the scope of her speech when she is dealing precisely with the issues contained in Part 1.
Hide Rodney: Taxation (Annual Rates Maori Organisations Taxpayer Compliance and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — Second Reading 
Hide Rodney: Taxation (Annual Rates Maori Organisations Taxpayer Compliance and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:606;Page:3930] 
RODNEY HIDE (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I would like you to point this out. I think Mr Parker is absolutely right. He did call as soon as I sat down. The difficulty he has is that he called when he was on the floor of the House. It is quite incorrect that a member can call from the floor of the Chamber. We have a problem because the call was incorrectly called. But I have to say to my good friend—I am friendly today—Mr Rod Donald that unfortunately Mr Parker has been given the call and cannot have it taken away from him. I suggest that you advise Mr Parker that members cannot call from the floor of the Chamber. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the honourable member for his contribution. The call had already been given so I call the honourable member Mr Parker.
Vote: Courts and Criminal Matters Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Courts and Criminal Matters Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:626;Page:21700] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 27 
New Zealand National 22; ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 79 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 12; Green Party 8; United Future 6; Progressive 2. 
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to an amendment to clause 7 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 370 in the name of the Hon Rick Barker be agreed to: 
to insert in subparagraph (i) of proposed new section 280F(3)(a) of the Customs and Excise Act after the words “(or any other” the word “lesser”.
Benson-Pope David: Maori Television Service (Te Aratuku Whakaata Irirangi Maori) Bill — Third Reading 
Benson-Pope David: Maori Television Service (Te Aratuku Whakaata Irirangi Maori) Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:608;Page:5291] 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (Senior Whip—NZ Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member has sought leave. 
John Carter 
: He may want to contribute. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Did the member want to speak to the point of order? 
DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: Can I just clarify the request? Am I correct in understanding that the leave requested is for when the House next sits or whenever this item continues on the Order Paper for this third reading to continue? 
John Carter 
: Correct. That is entirely what I am asking. 
DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: The Government will not be opposing that leave. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course of action? There is not. That course of action will be followed.
Peters Winston: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
Peters Winston: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
[Volume:619;Page:15206] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I want to make sure that New Zealand First cast its vote the right way by asking this question: if we voted at all points against this bill thus far does that mean we voted for kahawai to be part of the schedules? Could the Minister tell me so that we can make sure? If we voted against the bill at all points and on every vote does that mean that we voted for kahawai to be added to the schedules? 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am assured by the Minister that the answer is “No” but the point is not relevant now. 
Bill reported with amendment.
English Bill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
English Bill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:608;Page:5992] 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 I seek leave to table a series of documents that relate to question No. 5: a diplomatic cable from Washington to Wellington dated 28 May 2002; a Treasury report of 6 November 2002 on the harm to the New Zealand economy if there is not a New Zealand – US free-trade agreement; and a diplomatic cable from Wellington to Washington dated 21 January 2003 which I quoted in a supplementary question. 
Documents by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Duncan Helen: Civil Aviation Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Duncan Helen: Civil Aviation Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:610;Page:7406] 
HELEN DUNCAN (NZ Labour) 
: 
 I am pleased to support this bill. Its provisions contribute to aspects of the New Zealand transport strategy assist economic development through the mutual recognition between Australia and New Zealand of each other’s air safety approvals assist personal safety and security by the measures dealing with unruly passengers and improve access and mobility. I commend this bill to the House.
Gallagher Martin: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
Gallagher Martin: Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
[Volume:423;Page:18567] 
MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) 
: 
 I certainly as a member of the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee want to speak on this bill. I acknowledge that the chairperson of that committee will also do so very shortly as well and acknowledge that for us on the select committee this will be a very important task and will be an exercise that one would hope would have a broad cross-section of support right across this Chamber. Obviously in a democracy we acknowledge that there will be those who have concerns with aspects of this bill and that is the natural process of a parliamentary democracy with checks and balances. I believe that that is appropriate and useful. 
I will just take the time if I can to again highlight the key points of the bill which I think was more than adequately done by the Minister. I certainly intended to take a full 10-minute call on this bill but I will not; I will keep my speech reasonably brief. 
Obviously this bill amends the Terrorism Suppression Act. The key issue from my point of view is that the principal Act provides that designation as a terrorist organisation expires after 3 years unless it is renewed by an order of the High Court. This of course has created the unintended need for each designation to be renewed individually. Of course it would be impossible to renew all of those 318 listed designations before they expire next October and of course that would put New Zealand in breach of the relevant Security Council resolution. So the bill extends the expiry date for 2 years to 2007. That extension will allow a select committee review of the Act and to fully consider what changes if any should be made to the renewal process and for any resulting changes to be implemented. 
I just finally acknowledge the previous speaker. Yes we do live in a world where terrorism is indeed a very serious threat. Hopefully through the robust consideration of the select committee we will ensure that innocent people are not caught up in this. That is very important. But we will be very focused that the security and integrity of our country is protected at the same time.
Vote: Care of Children Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Care of Children Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:621;Page:16700] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 46 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 1. 
Motion agreed to. 
House resumed.
Prebble Richard: Urgent Debates Declined — State Services Commission Report on Te Puni Kokiri 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Prebble Richard: Urgent Debates Declined — State Services Commission Report on Te Puni Kokiri 
[Sitting date: 15 October 2003. Volume:612;Page:9186. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I invite you to think about what you have just told the House. You told the House that you were rejecting the debate because there are other parliamentary opportunities. You were then asked by Mr Dunne what those opportunities were and the first one you told us about was by way of asking a question. If you look at page 1 of that report you will see the reason the State Services Commission has been called in is that Te Puni Kokiri cannot give accurate answers to questions. We are now told that this matter should not be debated and all the member had to do was to put down a question. Unless you can certify that those answers will be accurate that appears to me to be an extraordinary piece of advice. We are told—and I have never seen this before—that the State Services Commission is taking over the administration of a State agency because that agency cannot answer questions accurately to this House. Then we are told that we cannot debate that matter and that we should just put it down in a question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will allow Mr Peters to say something.