edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Vote: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill Health and Disability Commissioner Amendment Bill Medicines Amendment Bill — Third Readings 
Vote: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill Health and Disability Commissioner Amendment Bill Medicines Amendment Bill — Third Readings 
[Volume:611;Page:8636] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill be now read a third time 
. 
Ayes 70 
Labour 52; Green Party 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 45 
New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7. 
Bill read a third time. 
Health and Disability Commissioner Amendment Bill read a third time.
Turner Judy: Future Directions (Working for Families) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
Turner Judy: Future Directions (Working for Families) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:13517] 
JUDY TURNER (United Future) 
: 
 I just want to take a very brief call on the title clause of the Future Directions (Working for Families) Bill because we think it is a very good title. When we want to work for families and set future directions we have to understand that that is not an event; it is a journey and a process. This legislation by the very title that has been chosen for it talks about a journey and a process rather than an event and we applaud that. 
We have already signalled the fact that there are additions to those future directions that we would like to see addressed in the future and the truth is that we want to achieve that in a different way from the way suggested by the Opposition. The Opposition says: “The way to fix this United Future is just to pull the Government down and throw it on the mercy of the Greens and New Zealand First.” as if that will somehow translate into outcomes for families. 
Well that is not the way we work in United Future. The way we work is that we honour our word and maintain our commitment. Our commitment is to both those who elected us who are family people and to the Government that the New Zealand public put into power. Let us just remember what the voters said on 27 July 2002. 
United Future will not allow its judgment to be clouded by what is not being achieved by this bill but will choose to focus on the substantial achievements offered by this legislation. If the economy responds as Dr Cullen hopes then United Future will take every opportunity to further the issues that we consider still need to be addressed so we will continue to support this bill.
Vote: Tariff (New Zealand - Thailand Closer Economic Partnership) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Tariff (New Zealand - Thailand Closer Economic Partnership) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:21421] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 97 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 21 
New Zealand First 13; Green Party 8. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Keith Locke to clause 2 be agreed to: 
to omit the term “2005” and sustitute the term “2010”.
Hobbs Marian: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Transitional Provisions and Controls) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee  
Hobbs Marian: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Transitional Provisions and Controls) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee  
[Volume:616;Page:11761] 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 A number of assertions were made in the debate on Part 1 and I think some of them actually touched on Part 2. There was an assertion—and I shall clarify the statistics—that it will take light years to get through the process because so many substances are outside the legislation. Extravagant claims were made about that. 
This wondrous piece of legislation was written in 1996. The purpose of the bill is to speed up the process. It allows the authority to issue a notice of transfer by notice in the  
Gazette 
. It removes the requirement to transfer substances through regulations. It has always taken ages for that to go through the required Cabinet committees and be written in the Parliamentary Counsel Office. That has been part of the problem in the past as the transfers have been worked through and it has slowed down the process through to the present time. 
Members also talked about the authority having the ability to assign practical cost-effective controls to hazardous substances rather than having to vary the default controls individually and do that by regulation. It had become ludicrous as people got into the actual business of transferring. April is the time line we are working to if this legislation is passed. We had a timetable to push this through. I thank the chair of the Education and Science Committee in that respect. There was a need for speediness. It was costing businesses in this country money. In April we hope that dangerous goods will be transferred; and in July pesticides—the scheduled toxic substances; and in post-July we will try to deal with notified toxic substances. 
I want to clarify one matter. The figure mentioned of 70000 is correct. The 215000 figure is to do with notifications under the old toxic substances legislation. That figure becomes 70000 notified toxic substances once we remove multiple notifications and substances that are not hazardous. The interesting thing is that that figure leapt from 8000 to 215000 once people started raising their hands saying: “I think I’m using or about to use a toxic substance.” They had to go through that whole process—if I am correct—of finding out what was multiple and what was toxic or not toxic to reduce that to 70000. I can assure people that we will not be going through a process that will take another 80 years. With the help of committee members I think we have a process that will keep this thing on time and online.
Robertson H V Ross: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Robertson H V Ross: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:17098] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No the member knows— 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: I am seeking leave.
Sowry Roger: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
Sowry Roger: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
[Volume:608;Page:5573] 
Hon ROGER SOWRY (Deputy Leader—NZ National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. What you are saying is that you called “The Ayes have it.” and when we went to move on to the next vote you decided you had made a mistake and you have changed the vote. So we do not need any leave of the Committee or anything else like that—you can just change a vote. I find that extraordinary and I think we need to have a Speaker’s ruling if we are going to be in a position where a Chair without the leave of the House can just say: “Oh no I am going to change the vote.” You called “The Ayes have it.” 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you. It is up to the Chair to decide whether he or she may have made a mistake. In this case I have determined that the Noes have it.
Ewen-Street Ian: Wine Makers Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Ewen-Street Ian: Wine Makers Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:607;Page:4265] 
IAN EWEN-STREET (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party will support the speedy passage of this bill through the House. I want to make a couple of very brief points. First we note that New Zealand wine exports have not suffered any lack of demand overseas even at the premium prices we receive. Compare that with some of the prices being fetched by American and South American wines which I believe are now as low as $2 a litre. It is interesting that the demand for high quality remains and that should be an object lesson for all our primary production. That lesson is that we should stick with quality. 
The second thing I want to mention briefly is the idea that as Mr Carter said we are basically doing this for the European market and not for ourselves. We are being compelled to do it. We constantly seem to be looking for free-trade agreements yet this is the very antithesis almost of a free-trade agreement. This is a market that is putting non-tariff trade barriers in place. We need to get away from that. Look at what is happening in America as well. It has $400 billion worth of subsidies. Hello! Do they want free trade? Do the Europeans want free trade? They talk about it but when it comes down to it they do not do it. We need to be very cautious about what we are doing there. I think that is all I need to say.
Points of Order — Questions for Written Answer 
Points of Order — Questions for Written Answer 
[Volume:608;Page:6001] 
Points of Order 
Questions for Written Answer 
BRIAN CONNELL (NZ National—Rakaia) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek your assistance in getting answers to written questions. I have four that are outstanding—two to the Minister for ACC dated 16 January— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If the member brings them to me then as soon as I leave the Chair in a minute or two I will look into the matter.
Swain Paul: Corrections Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
Swain Paul: Corrections Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:12998] 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Corrections) 
: 
 I want to make a couple of brief comments relating to Supplementary Order Paper 213. The issues considered in the Supplementary Order Paper were considered at the Law and Order Committee and are the result of a number of submissions that were made. The reality is that those matters were not able to be read into the bill simply because of the tied nature of that committee so they have come back to the Committee as a Supplementary Order Paper. They have had considerable discussion at the select committee I understand. 
The second issue I want to bring to members’ attention is on page 7 of the Supplementary Order Paper and it concerns the powers and functions of the chief executive and managers. That matter is part of the discussion that the Progressives and the Greens had with the Government. I want to acknowledge the work of the Green Party and of Nandor Tanczos in coming up with some smart wording about how we could engage both the chief executive and the managers with local communities in ensuring that those communities are involved more in some of the programmes and processes that go on within prisons and also extending beyond that. If we are to do something about rehabilitation and improving the resettlement and recidivism rates in New Zealand then it is really important that we have greater community involvement. I think the amendment is a step forward and an improvement in the bill as it came to the House. 
Finally I say there will be a lot of excitement agitation concern outrage and anger at clauses 185 and 186. Those particular provisions relate to ending the private management of the Auckland Central Remand Prison and placing it back into public hands. That has been a well-intentioned well-signalled policy plank of this Government for some considerable years. We consider that incarceration—that is taking away people’s liberty—is a fundamental core function of the State and that is why we are doing that.
Benson-Pope David: State Sector Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Benson-Pope David: State Sector Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:610;Page:7334] 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (Senior Whip—NZ Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Cullen Michael: Business of the House 
Cullen Michael: Business of the House 
[Volume:609;Page:6919] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 This might be a convenient time for me to seek leave for a valedictory statement by Graham Kelly to be set down for 5.30 p.m. on 22 July. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There is not. It will appear on the Order Paper.
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:620;Page:15458] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. In respect to the questions that were raised about the actual wording used by the Minister of Finance in answer to question No. 1 we now have a transcript taken from the Sky broadcast tape. In fact the Minister did say: “The National Business Review Outlook observes good news in the economy seems to be everywhere. And although the Reserve Bank raised interest rates today it did so because growth is so strong.” In our view that is quite a breach of the confidentiality that should surround that announcement. We were wondering at what point the Minister might make a ministerial statement. I would suggest that a point of order in a speech that might follow is an inappropriate way to deal with this serious mishap.
Shirley Ken: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Shirley Ken: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:620;Page:16179] 
1.  
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (ACT) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee 
: Did the Prime Minister or any member of the executive ever suggest to him that Nanaia Mahuta be given an opportunity to present her submission to the committee after her submission was “received outside the parameters set by the committee”? 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Chairperson of the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee) 
: 
 No. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: How can he assure the House that initially he was not acting on Government and caucus instructions to deny Nanaia Mahuta an opportunity to present her submission to the select committee and then when the heat became too great and that position was reversed he again used his position as chair to accommodate the backward flip? 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER 
: My assurance is contained in my last answer. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. How can a reference to his previous answer which was “No.” possibly address that question that I just put to him? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Well I listened to what the member said and he said he gave that in relation to his assurance. I thought he was actually addressing the question. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: On what grounds did he recommend that Nanaia Mahuta present her submission to the select committee? 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER 
: Two grounds as I have discussed with Dr Mapp subsequently. First I was approached by Nanaia Mahuta who told me that I had previously said that I would try to have her included in the list to be called. I did not recall that but I took her at her word. Second which I have not discussed with Dr Mapp her submission dealt with exclusive modified possession concepts which had not previously been dealt with at any length in submissions.
Imports and Exports (Restrictions) Amendment Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH 
Imports and Exports (Restrictions) Amendment Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH 
[Volume:609;Page:6946] 
Imports and Exports (Restrictions) Amendment Bill 
Instruction to CommitteeCWH 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE (Associate Minister of Commerce) 
: I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Imports and Exports (Restrictions) Amendment 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 47 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7. 
Motion agreed to.
Vote: Aquaculture Reform Bill — Second Reading Instructions to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Aquaculture Reform Bill — Second Reading Instructions to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17719] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 36 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 9. 
Noes 83 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Phil Heatley to clause 21 be agreed to: 
to omit paragraph (b) of new section 165O(2).
Hartley Ann: Land Transport Management Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Hartley Ann: Land Transport Management Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:613;Page:9657] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I have ruled on this matter. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Yes you have but I have a point of order.
Vote: Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:619;Page:15356] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 3 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 75 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 42 
New Zealand National 27; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 6. 
Part 3 as amended agreed to.
Carter Chris: Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Carter Chris: Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:618;Page:14049] 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 I move  
That the Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
. This bill is an important step forward in resolving Auckland's transport problems. New Zealand's largest city is being held back by traffic congestion that is impacting not only on Auckland but on the whole country because of Auckland's importance to the national economy. To deal with the lack of past investment the Government is providing an additional $1.62 billion to be spent on Auckland transport over the next 10 years. 
This bill deals with the necessary changes in the governance structures for Auckland transport. The Government's Investing for Growth package and the transport sector review address these funding and governance issues at the national level. Together these proposals consolidate transport governance in the Auckland region and provide a firm foundation for integrated safe responsible and sustainable decision making. 
Under the bill the Auckland Regional Council will be given overarching responsibility for Auckland transport. The council will continue to be directly responsible for the Auckland regional land transport strategy but will undertake its operations through a new arm's-length council-controlled organisation called the Auckland Regional Transport Authority. The authority will be responsible for planning funding and developing the Auckland regional land transport system including setting land transport priorities in the region. The bill disestablishes Infrastructure Auckland and transfers its assets to the Auckland Regional Council's second new council-controlled organisation called Auckland Regional Holdings. It provides effective governance and accountability mechanisms for both the Auckland Regional Transport Authority and Auckland Regional Holdings and a firm basis for improvements in Auckland's transport to be achieved. 
The passing of this legislation will give Auckland a real opportunity both to determine for itself the priorities that will address its transport problems and to implement those priorities. The bill is only the beginning. There is still much work to be done by all of us—the Auckland Regional Council Auckland Regional Transport Authority Auckland Regional Holdings Auckland territorial authorities and Government agencies. This Government has had the courage the will and the resources to do something about Auckland's transport problems.
Pillay Lynne: Evidence Bill — First Reading 
Pillay Lynne: Evidence Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:20425] 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
: 
 I am very pleased to rise and take a very short call as a former member of the Justice and Electoral Committee. 
Darren Hughes 
: That powerful committee! 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: That is right. The need for this bill has been anticipated for a very very long time and its passage will be the culmination of a lengthy process. 
I want to acknowledge the Law Commission which was very thorough. It spent a decade reviewing aspects of evidence law publishing discussion papers and seeking the views of those involved with the justice sector including a wide variety of community groups academics officials members of the legal profession and our respected judiciary. 
I will close by saying that this bill brings together decades of decisions and reforms of statutes. It is common-sense practical forward-thinking and visionary—just like this Government.
Benson-Pope David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Benson-Pope David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:615;Page:11173] 
9.  
DAVID BENSON-POPE (Labour—Dunedin South) 
 to the  
Minister of State Services 
: What progress has been made to date towards implementing a retirement savings scheme in the State sector? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of State Services) 
: 
 A selection panel has selected four providers: AMP ASB AXA and the Global Retirement Trust. 
David Benson-Pope 
: Can the Minister detail the particular benefits of the public service retirement savings scheme? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: It sets a good example for employers it will help up to 100000 people to better prepare for their retirement and it will help the State sector to recruit and to retain good people. 
Rod Donald 
: While agreeing with the scheme I ask the Minister what are the retirement savings applications for teachers and principals in the State sector who are losing their jobs or seniority as a result of his destructive school merger or closure plans? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I do not know of one teacher other than a principal who has lost his or her job other than voluntarily under these arrangements. It is my hope that every principal who is a good principal will win a job on merit. I do not accept that member’s approach which would allow people whom boards regard as not being up to the job to have a job.
Shirley Ken: Counter-Terrorism Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Shirley Ken: Counter-Terrorism Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:9343] 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. United Future members—and I know they are only new—have been attempting to get the call and they have not had an opportunity to contribute to the debate. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The question has been accepted. The Clerk will conduct a party vote. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: I do ask that you reflect upon the reasonableness of your decision though because the United Future party has not had an opportunity to contribute.
Hartley Ann: Registered Architects Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Hartley Ann: Registered Architects Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:19932] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: This debate includes debate on schedule 1.
Tisch Lindsay: Government Communications Security Bureau Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH 
Tisch Lindsay: Government Communications Security Bureau Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH 
[Volume:607;Page:4360] 
LINDSAY TISCH (Junior Whip—NZ National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I do not think there is any necessity to have a party vote. Just an oral vote would tidy the situation up. 
Motion agreed to.
Pillay Lynne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Pillay Lynne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:607;Page:4535] 
4.  
LYNNE PILLAY (NZ Labour—Waitakere) 
 to the  
Minister of Social Services and Employment 
: What reports has the Minister seen on the state of the labour market? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Social Services and Employment) 
: 
 The recently released progress report on the Government’s employment strategy shows that in 2002 the number of people with a job rose by 44000. That is a record for people who are employed. The unemployment rate fell to a 15-year low of 4.9 percent. Labour force participation remains therefore historically high. We are employing a whole-of-Government approach and it seems to be working. 
Lynne Pillay 
: How are these nationwide employment results reflected in the regions? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The rural regions had the highest percentage gain in employment. The Labour-Progressive Government’s focus on regional development and on regional and industry partnerships has seen tangible results creating opportunities that place people into real employment. For example in Motueka for the first time in at least 20 years there are no unemployed people available for seasonal work because there are no unemployed people available. 
Katherine Rich 
: When the OECD Treasury his own ministry and evidence from Australia and the United States all acknowledge that work testing and work requirements play an important part in getting people back into work why does the Minister continue to ignore these options and in fact do the opposite here in New Zealand? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Because I want to do a lot more for sole parents than the National Party did. It ignored them until their youngest children were 6 years old. We want to work with those parents every year to make sure they build their capacity and get a job. 
Peter Brown 
: Is the Minster aware that there are several thousand people employed casually in this country with little or no job security; and can the Minister tell us what reports he has had on this aspect of the labour market? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Yes a number of people work in very casual forms of employment throughout the labour market. It has been one of the things that member has been interested in—and so have we—to try to ensure we regulate the labour market in order to minimise the number of people who are in such insecure jobs.
Cullen Michael: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Cullen Michael: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:616;Page:11643] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Will Dr Nick Smith be tabling evidence that a lahar occurred and that the alarm system did not work when it occurred?
Resignations — Tariana Turia—Te Tai Hauauru 
Resignations — Tariana Turia—Te Tai Hauauru 
[Volume:617;Page:12957] 
Tuesday 18 May 2004 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Resignations 
Tariana Turia—Te Tai Hauauru 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I wish to advise the House that I have received a letter from Tariana Turia resigning her seat in the House with effect on 17 May 2004.
Robertson H V Ross: Children Young Persons and Their FamiliesAmendment Bill (No 4) — First Reading 
Robertson H V Ross: Children Young Persons and Their FamiliesAmendment Bill (No 4) — First Reading 
[Volume:618;Page:14482] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the honourable member for his contribution. I understand the concern that he has but there is nothing that I can actually do about it—and the Minister did indicate this course at the commencement of the debate.
Duncan Helen: Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Duncan Helen: Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:615;Page:11182] 
HELEN DUNCAN (Labour) 
: 
 I am pleased to rise in support of the Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities Amendment Bill. As the previous speaker said it is largely a technical bill to put in place provisions that New Zealand needs in order to support its place in the international community.
Vote: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
Vote: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
[Volume:608;Page:5580] 
A party vote was called for on the question T 
hat the amendment be agreed to 
. 
Ayes 9 
Noes 105 
Amendment not agreed to. 
Green Party 9. 
Labour 52; New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 86 in the name of the Hon Marian Hobbs be agreed to.
Parker David: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Transitional Provisions and Controls) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Parker David: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Transitional Provisions and Controls) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:11806] 
DAVID PARKER (Labour—Otago) 
: 
 I too commend this bill to the House and I thank the chairman of the Education and Science Committee Mr Donnelly and other members who were on it for the work that they did on the bill. It will improve the legislation relating to the control of hazardous substances. It is important that legislation like that works as cost effectively as possible so that it maintains New Zealand’s position as a nation with one of the lowest rates of compliance costs in the OECD. I commend this legislation to the House.
Benson-Pope David: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Reading 
Benson-Pope David: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:11769] 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister of Fisheries) 
: 
 I move  
That the Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a third time 
. This bill implements a settlement agreed between the Crown and the commercial seafood industry concerning the under and over-recovery of conservation and fishery levies since 1994. The intent of the bill is to provide a full and final resolution of all cost recovery issues up to 30 September 2002. This ensures that each and every levy order relating to any period on or before that date may not be the subject of any legal challenge on any basis. This is a technical and complicated issue that has taken both hard work and goodwill to resolve. 
First of all I would like to thank the members of the seafood industry and the Ministry of Fisheries who have worked on this issue over a number of years. The solution reflects a collaborative approach to this longstanding issue and provides a sound basis for moving forward. I take this opportunity also to thank the members of the Primary Production Committee for the very solid work they put in on this bill which ensured that it had majority acceptance when we considered it at the Committee of the whole House yesterday and I thank in particular the chair of the select committee David Carter who took the bill through the Committee. 
The second function of this bill is to amend section 233 of the Fisheries Act 1996 to ensure that the law reflects the original parliamentary intent. This section contains the Act’s highest band of offence provisions and is aimed at serious offending including poaching black market and fraud offences. The bill rectifies a drafting error to ensure that this kind of serious offending is subject to appropriate offence provisions. This bill ensures that those people who knowingly contravene the Act understand that they are stealing from the whole community by taking a natural resource for their own benefit or with intent to obtain such a benefit and are committing an imprisonable offence. This bill will give the Ministry of Fisheries the power to take effective enforcement action against those people who knowingly act in that manner. 
Finally this bill introduces a technical amendment to place it beyond doubt that the word “Act” as used throughout the Fisheries Act 1996 includes rules and regulations made under the Fisheries Act 1996. I support this bill as it provides a basis for the commercial fishing industry to progress forward in relation to cost recovery issues and provides for effective penalties relating to serious offending to further protect our most important fishing resource. I commend the bill to the House.
Vote: Imports and Exports (Restrictions) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Imports and Exports (Restrictions) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6952] 
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. 
David Benson-Pope 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I observed that after your admonition about silence immediately after one of the parties had called out its vote two members of the Opposition clearly interjected. We either have a rule that applies to everyone or we do not. I ask that it be enforced. 
John Carter 
: It will be. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The Opposition whip has just assured me of that. The member is quite right. It is even worse— 
David Benson-Pope 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I do not know what is acceptable outside the Chamber but the gesture that has just been made to me by Ms Collins is totally unacceptable and I ask that she withdraw and apologise. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I did not see an inappropriate gesture. Would the member stand and indicate whether that happened. 
Judith Collins 
: It did not Madam Chairperson. I think the member has misinterpreted a wave. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member’s word must be accepted. 
David Benson-Pope 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. It is very unusual to wave with an upturned hand and one finger extended. I take offence and I ask for a withdrawal and an apology please. 
John Carter 
: I happened to see the wave and maybe that is because I am closer. But there were a number of fingers and it was this sort of wave rather than one hand and one finger. I suggest it was a wave of acknowledgment rather than any other sort of gesture. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member’s word is accepted but I ask members to heed the warning that was given. Certainly this would not have happened had a comment not been made. It is even worse to make a comment on the content of the voting. I really caution members again because it has happened several times and it is not good enough.
Peters Winston: Speaker’s Rulings — Questions for Oral Answer—Ministers' Replies 
Peters Winston: Speaker’s Rulings — Questions for Oral Answer—Ministers' Replies 
[Volume:620;Page:15444] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I have heard your report to Parliament but if one looks at Standing Orders 370(1) and (2) then one sees that all that is required is that it be an issue complied with by Ministers consistently with the public interest and that answers be concise and confined to the subject matter of the question asked. That is all that is required. If I could use an analogy the communist countries all have magnificent constitutions—of course those constitutions have nothing to do with people’s good order and harmony and compliance with human rights is often not an issue that concerns the Governments of those countries. But I am concerned in this case having heard your ruling that it may sound fine except that at this present time we are not getting at the truth of these matters. We are hearing every obfuscatory form of delay and often 4 days later we get an answer. 
We had classic examples last week and even yesterday when the Prime Minister said that if the member put a particular question down in writing he or she would get an answer. Until then we were led to believe by the Government and the Speaker that it was not in the public interest at all to answer. So extraordinary was it last week that the Minister of Police said this in answer to a question: “I do not have that information. I do not want that information …”. He got away with that in this House. He literally told this House that although the question was legitimately in the public and national interest he would not even move a muscle to find out the truth. Your ruling allows him to get away with that and in that sense I would put that on all fours with the analogy of the communist countries’ constitutions.
Vote: Aquaculture Reform Bill — Second Reading Instructions to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Aquaculture Reform Bill — Second Reading Instructions to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17719] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 36 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 9. 
Noes 83 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Phil Heatley to clause 21 be agreed to: 
to omit paragraph (a) of new section 165O(2).
Hartley Ann: Corrections Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Hartley Ann: Corrections Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:617;Page:13165] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Two further amendments in the name of Marc Alexander are out of order.
Peters Jim: Dog Control Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Peters Jim: Dog Control Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:613;Page:9888] 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
:  
Schedule 4 in schedule 2 encapsulates some of the concerns about breed-specific legislation. Those concerns are still with us. Even as late as this afternoon at half past 1 we were talking to people about the potential impact of this schedule. I think they were not sensible to the fact that in the previous part there is—and this is complementary to schedule 4—the ability for a new breed or another breed or type to be categorised or classified according to a very set procedure. It includes consulting with and getting advice from local government dog societies animal welfare organisations and so on. 
If there are still people out there who are concerned about breed-specific legislation I say to them that we did not go the same way that other countries have. It is a very very small list of dogs and those dogs are very few in number. The American pit bull terrier does pose some problems with regard to the first cross. But we looked at that matter and the same criteria listed in section 78C in clause 39—the tendency of the breed to attack and to exhibit aggressive behaviour and the risks to public safety—would be factors to consider if there were some concern about the American pit bull terrier and if it were not dealt with by the earlier parts of the bill. 
So basically the new schedule 4 takes a realistic common-sense approach. There are guarantees in the present bill to reassure those people who are concerned about the “breed not need” concept. That the number of dogs concerned is few fits very well with the general common-sense approach that the Local Government and Environment Committee had.
Jones Dail: Urgent Debates — Solomon Islands—Deployment of Police and Military Forces  
Jones Dail: Urgent Debates — Solomon Islands—Deployment of Police and Military Forces  
[Volume:609;Page:6711] 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 I seek the leave of the House to table New Zealand First’s defence policy of 1996.
Wilson Margaret: Privilege — Allegations—David Benson-Pope MP 
Wilson Margaret: Privilege — Allegations—David Benson-Pope MP 
[Volume:626;Page:21039] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. We are now starting to debate the matter. I do not think that that will further the consideration or the ruling that has been given at this stage. I thank the members for their contributions but now I call on question No. 1 Dr Don Brash. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker.
Mallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Mallard Trevor: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:623;Page:18745] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I know that this is an exceptionally unusual thing to do but it might help the House if I shared with it the Prime Minister’s  
Hansard 
 for question No. 1 yesterday which makes it—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: This is a point of order. That member raises far too many points of order and a lot of them are not points of order. This is actually a point of order. Carry on Mr Mallard. There will be no interjections or people will leave the Chamber. I have had enough. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The response to the first supplementary question of the day yesterday from the Rt Hon Winston Peters makes it absolutely clear that the variability question the sheet in question was sent to my office on the 17th and I looked at it after the Cabinet meeting. That was made clear well before Mr English’s question.
Jones Dail: Judicature Amendment Bill (No 3) — First Reading 
Jones Dail: Judicature Amendment Bill (No 3) — First Reading 
[Volume:627;Page:21778] 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First supports this legislation with particular reference to Parts 1 and 2 although the provisions in Part 2 that relate to the Supreme Court would usually be opposed by New Zealand First because we intend when we introduce our direct democracy policy to see whether there is demand for a referendum on this issue allowing the people of New Zealand to decide for themselves whether appeals should continue to the Privy Council. 
When the Justice and Electoral Committee looked at the bill introduced to end the right of appeal to the Privy Council one of the issues that became very clear to us was that the New Zealand Court of Appeal is grossly overworked. When we considered that legislation we tried to convince the Government to increase the number of judges in the New Zealand Court of Appeal. That was way back in 2003. It is now 2005 and finally we have been able to get the Government to do something about the issue and to increase the number of Court of Appeal judges by two from six to eight—and I think the President of the Court of Appeal counts as being in addition to those judges. 
The New Zealand Court of Appeal should be complimented on the amount of work it does and the quality of its decisions. However the Attorney-General should consider the large number of criminal appeals that are now flooding the Court of Appeal. It is most unfortunate that probably on legal aid many lawyers decide to give it a go in the Court of Appeal to see whether the trial judge overlooked something or made a mistake that might form a basis for the matter to be referred to the High Court. That means yet another trial on legal aid and a possible return to the Court of Appeal for an appeal on the outcome of the reheard case. We may be cynical about it but when we look at the increasing trend towards appeals we see there is justification for that cynicism. 
Clause 7 in Part 2 relates to appeals against decisions of the High Court going to the Court of Appeal and refers to a case going directly to the Supreme Court. If this bill had consisted of Part 2 only New Zealand First would have opposed the legislation. But we do not want to be churlish and we support the increase in the number of judges in the Court of Appeal. This is the only way in which we can achieve that objective and as we want to achieve that objective we support this bill going to the Government Administration Committee. What we do later as far as Part 2 is concerned remains to be seen.
Urgent Debates Declined — Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security—Comments Marine Farm Resource Applications 
Urgent Debates Declined — Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security—Comments Marine Farm Resource Applications 
[Volume:614;Page:10286] 
Urgent Debates Declined 
Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security—Comments 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from Keith Locke seeking to debate under Standing Order 376 reported comments of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security. The comments constitute a particular case of recent occurrence. While the Prime Minister has certain responsibilities under the relevant legislation she has no responsibility for the comments the inspector-general has made and it is those comments that form the basis of this application. The application is consequently not accepted. 
Marine Farm Resource Applications 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have also received a letter from the Hon Ken Shirley seeking to debate an announcement that the moratorium on processing new marine farm resource applications is to be extended. This is a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility. However as the existing moratorium was not in any case due to expire until 25 March 2004 the matter does not require the immediate attention of the House. The application is declined.
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
[Volume:616;Page:11989] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 No. I made a remark about a course of action that I intended to pursue. I have done that. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That ends the matter.
Vote: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Vote: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:17102] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 11 
Green Party 9; Maori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 109 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Metiria Turei to clause 71 be agreed to: 
to omit subclauses (1) and (2).
Cullen Michael: Taxation (Annual Rates Venture Capital and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — In Committee 
Cullen Michael: Taxation (Annual Rates Venture Capital and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:16586] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Revenue) 
: 
 Only a couple of points have been made. Ms Wong decided to refer to the Child Support Act. This bill actually amends the Tax Administration Act and the question she raised should have been raised in a different debate. In respect of the point made by Mr Prebble—I think that is his name—clause 111 simply corrects a reference error in the Income Tax Act. I would point out that Mr Tamihere has made it clear that he did not know that tax was not paid—nor does any other member in this House— 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: What kind of fool does he think he is? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Not as big a fool as Dr Lockwood Smith—that is certainly true! Not as big a fool as that member has proved to be throughout his career! I invite that member to explain to the House how he became a multimillionaire having been an MP for most of his life.
Vote: Civil Union Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Civil Union Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:622;Page:17573] 
A personal vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 46 
Adams(P) 
English(P) 
Peters J (P) 
Tisch  
Alexander(P) 
Franks(P) 
Peters W (P) 
Turner(P) 
Baldock(P) 
Gudgeon(P) 
Power 
Wang(P) 
Brash(P) 
Heatley(P) 
Prebble 
Williamson(P) 
Brown (P) 
Hutchison(P) 
Roy(P) 
Woolerton(P) 
Carter D (P) 
Jones  
Ryall(P) 
Worth(P) 
Carter J (P) 
Key(P) 
Scott(P) 
Catchpole(P) 
Mapp(P) 
Shirley(P) 
Coddington  
McNair(P) 
Smith L (P) 
Collins(P) 
Newman(P) 
Smith M (P) 
Copeland  
Ogilvy(P) 
Smith N (P) 
Dunne(P) 
Paraone(P) 
Stewart  
Teller: 
Eckhoff(P) 
Perry (P) 
te Heuheu(P) 
Connell  
Noes 74 
Anderton(P) 
Duynhoven(P) 
Laban(P) 
Simich(P) 
Ardern(P) 
Dyson(P) 
Locke(P) 
Sowry(P) 
Barker(P) 
Ewen-Street  
Mackey J  
Sutton(P) 
Barnett(P) 
Fairbrother(P) 
Mackey M (P) 
Swain(P) 
Benson-Pope  
Field(P) 
Maharey  
Tamihere(P) 
Beyer(P) 
Fitzsimons(P) 
Mahuta(P) 
Tanczos(P) 
Bradford(P) 
Gallagher(P) 
Mallard(P) 
Tizard(P) 
Brownlee(P) 
Goff(P) 
Mark(P) 
Turei(P) 
Burton  
Gosche(P) 
McCully(P) 
Turia(P) 
Carter C(P) 
Goudie(P) 
O'Connor(P) 
Ward(P) 
Chadwick(P) 
Hartley(P) 
Okeroa(P) 
Wilson(P) 
Choudhary(P) 
Hawkins(P) 
Parker(P) 
Wong(P) 
Clark(P) 
Hereora(P) 
Peck(P) 
Yates (P) 
Cosgrove(P) 
Hide(P) 
Pettis  
Cullen(P) 
Hobbs(P) 
Pillay(P) 
Cunliffe(P) 
Hodgson(P) 
Rich(P) 
Dalziel(P) 
Horomia(P) 
Ririnui 
Donald(P) 
Hunt(P) 
Robertson(P) 
Donnelly(P) 
Kedgley(P) 
Robson(P) 
Teller: 
Duncan(P) 
King(P) 
Samuels(P) 
Hughes 
Amendment not agreed to.