edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Vote: Charities Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Charities Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:19972] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 74 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 44 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 7; Green Party 9; Maori Party 1. 
Amendments agreed to.
Barnett Tim: Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill — First Reading 
Barnett Tim: Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:624;Page:19343] 
TIM BARNETT (Labour—Christchurch Central) 
: 
 I am delighted to speak in warm support of the Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill. This legislation amends four existing Acts: the Building Act the Health Act the Commerce Act and the Copyright Act. In all those situations it restores copyright protection. It ensures that builders have ready access to standards for design and construction in a way that does not impose additional costs on their industry. It amends Acts that require somebody to make material that is incorporated by reference available free of charge on the Internet. These are minor changes to the legislation. 
The issue at the heart of this bill is that it is important to strike a balance between enabling access to material incorporated by reference and the legitimate commercial interests of the owners of copyrighting standards and other material that may be incorporated by reference. The process being undertaken through this bill can best be described in one word: tweaking. This is a tweaking of legislation. This bill is turning very good law into excellent law and I commend it to the House.
Mallard Trevor: Imprest Supply (Second for 2005/06) Bill — First Reading 
Mallard Trevor: Imprest Supply (Second for 2005/06) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:627;Page:22222] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Associate Minister of Finance) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Finance 
: I move  
That the Imprest Supply (Second for 2005/06) Bill be now read a first time.
Vote: Electricity and Gas Industries Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Electricity and Gas Industries Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:15733] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 47 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Part 2 agreed to.
Peters Jim: Maori Purposes Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Peters Jim: Maori Purposes Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:607;Page:4817] 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 I want to raise again exactly what we are doing in respect of clause 4. What we are doing—and New Zealand First agrees with the bill—is validating the actions of a commission the Waitangi Tribunal some years later with regard to the matters that it is able to deliberate upon notwithstanding the fact that one or more members of that tribunal did not hear the submissions or the evidence. The more I think about it the more I begin to question why with a four-person tribunal should one member by the reasons advanced in clause 5AD of the bill not be able to be a member of the tribunal and continue hearing submissions and making deliberations that tribunal should not be reduced to a three-person or even a two-person tribunal—should the tribunal wish to hear the expert material that the member would have been able to give guidance to the tribunal on seek outside expert legal evidence or maybe cultural evidence in order to aid it in its final deliberations so we do not have a tribunal being set up to hear a whole course of submissions of great import and at the end have a decision made by some members only. We support the general thrust of the bill. We merely ask that greater consideration be given to those matters. 
With regard to a matter raised by Mr Hide he is exactly correct. Paragraph (c) in clause 5AC2 states and it is not qualified by any other paragraph: “in the opinion of the Chairperson it would be unreasonable to expect the presiding officer or member holding office under clause 5(1) to continue to participate in the inquiry into the particular claim or other matter because of his or her personal circumstances.” There is no qualification here as mentioned by the previous speaker about physical or mental condition at all. That paragraph stands absolute on its own and does give the ability for subjectivity personal bias or other political matters to come into the actions of the chairperson of the tribunal. That is a matter that should give some cause for concern. 
Last of all I again applaud Part 2 which at long last gives the Minister or the person who sits in that office the ability to deal with Maori broadcasting in a way that has been constrained and limited in the past by other agencies—some with a remote concern for Maori broadcasting and much more concern for limited financial funding.
Cullen Michael: Parole (Extended Supervision) and Sentencing Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Cullen Michael: Parole (Extended Supervision) and Sentencing Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee 
[Sitting date: 16 June 2004. Volume:618;Page:13625. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I will be seeking leave for a number of matters arising out of yesterday’s Business Committee meeting. Firstly I seek leave for the consideration of the Parole (Extended Supervision) and Sentencing Amendment Bill at the Committee stage to include the consideration and adoption of amendments to the Corrections Act 2004 in relation to inter-agency sharing of information about child sex offenders. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that leave being taken? There appears to be none.
Vote: Transport Legislation Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Transport Legislation Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:16929] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 84 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 35 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Motion agreed to.
Business Statement 
Business Statement 
[Volume:607;Page:4269] 
Thursday 20 March 2003 
Mr Speaker 
took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Business Statement 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week in the House it is the Government’s intention to make progress on the Government Communications Security Bureau Bill the War Pensions Amendment Bill (No 2) the Wine Makers Amendment Bill and the Industry New Zealand and Trade New Zealand Integration Bill. Wednesday is a members’ day. 
JOHN CARTER (Senior Whip—NZ National) 
: 
 I wonder whether the Leader of the House might just tell the House when he expects that we might be in urgency. I understand it is not next week but the week after but it would help us with our planning if he could confirm that. And is it likely just to go until 6 o’clock Friday? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I confirm that it is the Government’s intention at this point to take urgency the week after next. The House will lift by 6 p.m. Friday.
Wong Pansy: Border Security Bill — Second Reading 
Wong Pansy: Border Security Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:617;Page:13176] 
PANSY WONG (National) 
: 
 The National Party will definitely vote against this bill. I just want to take a short call to make a very important observation this afternoon. The Opposition members apart from the Greens have all stood up and given two very good reasons for not proceeding with this bill. One is on principle because of the definition of “public good” and the second is that nobody is fooled that this is a levy or cost recovery—it is simply a tax. When a Government cannot justify it it is nothing but a tax. Yet this bill will pass its second reading because of the Green Party. 
It is very interesting to look at the Green Party whose members always claim they have principles and are the guardians of democracy. They say they stand up for principles. I am not too sure what deal has been struck but whatever it is it must be pretty scary because that party is prepared to ditch its principles and support the Labour Government’s tax grab which is what this bill is. 
 This week or next week—soon—we are going to see the Hon Dr Michael Cullen playing Father Christmas. He will be giving away early Christmas presents in anticipation of next year’s election. We were told that the Government is looking at a revenue surplus of $7 billion. But it continues to punish the wealth creators of New Zealand our primary industries our exporters who are already having a hard time because of the high exchange rate that is facing them the Labour Government’s increasing compliance costs and the 17 other new taxes that have been imposed on New Zealanders particularly the business sector. 
I make the observation that I hope the Green Party between now the Committee stage of this bill and the third reading demonstrates once and for all to the New Zealand public that it is a party that stands up for principles and will not strike a deal to back the Labour Government on this legislation which is nothing but a tax grab in light of the $7 billion surplus which this Government will use to buy votes rather than relieve the burden on our farming and export sector which is our wealth creator. I look forward to the Green Party coming back to its principles changing its mind and making sure it sends the right message to the export sector to the people who already are struggling in terms of making sure their products are sold overseas to the benefit of all New Zealanders.
Vote: Maori Television Service Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Maori Television Service Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:607;Page:5071] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
Labour 52; Green Party 9. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 23; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8. 
Part 2 as amended agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Pursuant to an agreement of the House yesterday we will now proceed to voting on Part 1.
Business of the House 
Business of the House 
[Volume:626;Page:21123] 
Wednesday 8 June 2005 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Business of the House 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek leave for two additional members’ bills to be drawn in the ballot for members’ bills to be held tomorrow. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There is not.
Parker David: Care of Children Bill — Instruction to Committee Procedure In Committee 
Parker David: Care of Children Bill — Instruction to Committee Procedure In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:16663] 
DAVID PARKER (Labour—Otago) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
[Volume:623;Page:18737] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Before we get to that point I will no doubt have further discussions with the Minister of Justice and the incoming Attorney-General. I am hopeful that we will make some rapid progress on the Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill once we have completed the Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill and one or two other matters that have to be done during the next session of Parliament. I am also hopeful that we will not take too long over the Committee stage of that bill.
Vote: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Procedure Referral to Health Committee Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Vote: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Procedure Referral to Health Committee Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:610;Page:7929] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8. 
Noes 61 
Labour 52; Green Party 9. 
Motion not agreed to.
Dalziel Lianne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Dalziel Lianne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:614;Page:10582] 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 In respect of the tabling of a letter of 22 November from one Allison Jones of the office of the Rt Hon Winston Peters I seek leave to table the reply dated 3 December stating that we were unable to locate any trace of a person by the name applying to enter New Zealand. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
O'Connor Damien: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Discharge In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
O'Connor Damien: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Discharge In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8811] 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister for Racing) 
: 
 I think those issues were acknowledged at the start of the debate on this bill. There was very wide-ranging debate on the first part. Perhaps the member was not here for that debate which went for quite some time on the basis of that agreement.
Gallagher Martin: Prostitution Reform Bill — In Committee 
Gallagher Martin: Prostitution Reform Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6184] 
MARTIN GALLAGHER (NZ Labour—Hamilton West) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. We are obviously in for a long evening and I point out that I am in a position where I have been genuinely mistaken. I supported the previous amendment thinking that I could go on to support the amendment you have ruled out of order. I think it is very very important that when you put a particular amendment you clearly spell out prior to the voting what the consequential effect will be on voting for that amendment. So the consequential effect of voting for say Supplementary Order Paper 90 would be that Supplementary Order Paper 82 is then out of order. I can assure the Committee—and I state this clearly and publicly—that I would not have supported Supplementary Order Paper 90 if I had been aware of that. I realise what has happened has happened but it would be helpful just to assist us if the Chair would seek the appropriate advice and advise members in that way accordingly. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the honourable member for bringing that to my attention. I will certainly take note of that. We now come back to the amendments in the name of Dr Wayne Mapp. His transcript amendments seek to amend the Hon Phil Goff’s Supplementary Order Paper 91 to insert reference in clause 6D to Dr Mapp’s proposed new clause 6CB and reinstate the provisions of clause 6D(2). This replaces Dr Mapp’s Supplementary Order Paper 68 amendment to clause 6D. However if the Hon Phil Goff’s new clause 6D is not agreed to then Dr Mapp’s original amendment to clause 6D set out on Supplementary Order Paper 68 will stand.
Vote: Identity (Citizenship and Travel Documents) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Identity (Citizenship and Travel Documents) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:625;Page:20120] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 10 
Green Party 8; Maori Party 1; Other: Robson. 
Noes 105 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Pansy Wong to clause 8 be agreed to: 
to add to paragraph (d) of section 8(2) after the words “attaching to New Zealand citizenship the words “by completing a compulsory citizenship induction course administered by the Department of Internal Affairs”.
Wong Pansy: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Procedure Referral to Health Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled  Speaker Recalled In Committee Procedure 
Wong Pansy: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Procedure Referral to Health Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled  Speaker Recalled In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:613;Page:9972] 
PANSY WONG (National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I have put in a substantial number of amendments and I really would appreciate a call to explain the amendments I have lodged. There are some 20 pages of them. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I thank the member for making that plea. We have been debating this part for a long long time—with some 40 speakers—and I have decided that I am going to—
Urgent Debates Declined — Toll Holdings—Tranz Rail Report of Environmental Risk Management Authority 
Urgent Debates Declined — Toll Holdings—Tranz Rail Report of Environmental Risk Management Authority 
[Volume:610;Page:7148] 
Urgent Debates Declined 
Toll Holdings—Tranz Rail 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from the Hon Roger Sowry seeking to debate under Standing Order 376 an announcement on 7 July that the Government had reached an agreement with Toll Holdings concerning its bid for Tranz Rail. This is a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility. On 10 June I allowed an urgent debate on the Government’s decision to acquire an interest in Tranz Rail Holdings. While the agreement with Toll Holdings is an important development with regard to the future of Tranz Rail the fact that a recent urgent debate has been held combined with the ability to raise the matter under the appropriate vote in the estimates debate leads me to conclude that a further urgent debate is not justified. I therefore decline the application. 
Report of Environmental Risk Management Authority 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have also received a letter from Jeanette Fitzsimons seeking to debate the release on 2 July of a report by the Environmental Risk Management Authority on the risk management of new organisms. Given that the sitting on 1 July was the last sitting of the House this is a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility. While the release of a report may warrant an urgent debate this must be exceptional especially where working through a report’s recommendations will take some time and an urgent debate will usually not be justified. Under these circumstances I do not consider that the release of this report requires the business of the House to be set aside for a debate today.
Sowry Roger: Status of Redundancy Payments Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Sowry Roger: Status of Redundancy Payments Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:615;Page:11547] 
Hon ROGER SOWRY (National) 
:  
I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. For the Chair to ascertain who stood up first requires her to move her head around and look. I was standing here while the member was still speaking and I called and you just did not look.
Chadwick Steve: Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Chadwick Steve: Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:618;Page:14058] 
STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) 
: 
 I am pleased to speak after that rather sad speech from that ACT member. It was obviously caught up in Mr Rodney Hide’s ideology when he asked for there to be rates caps on local government. That party wants the Government to get out but that member says the Government needs to climb in more with regard to local authorities and their decision making. That is absolutely amazing. The ACT members have complained about the impact of regulation in the last decade but now they are demanding more regulation and want to go in there to tell local authorities and local government what they have to do for their roads. 
This is a wonderful bill. It is about enabling local authorities to avoid duplicating their efforts. They are to come together make decisions reach consensus avoid duplication and confusion and then come up with the decisions that work best for them. And of course they will be working to our national land transport strategy. That was another wonderful piece of work that this Government undertook and it will be completed by 2010. I support this bill. The 33 submitters supported this bill. The only thing they wanted to do was to make sure that we amended one clause in order to avoid duplication. This is a wonderful bill and we can get on with it now for the benefit of Auckland.
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
[Volume:607;Page:5033] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Yes. The Committee has taken leave to take the bill in two questions: the title and the remainder of the bill. It is really in the hands of the House or the Committee as to how it proceeds on that matter but clearly debate has been going on for some time on the title of the bill. I think there was a feeling in the Business Committee—amongst a number of members anyway—that it might be useful to move on reasonably soon to the consideration of the details of the bill and the amendments that have been moved as people seem to be making up their minds fairly clearly on which way they will vote.
Shirley Ken: General Debate 
Shirley Ken: General Debate 
[Volume:627;Page:22066] 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I said: “She’s not lying is she?”. I was asking a question. From what we have heard—and hopefully it is true—she was not lying. But I interjected to say: “She’s not lying is she?”. I did not make an accusation. I put the question. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Please be seated. To me that still stretches the imagination. We have both been in this place a long time and we know how the game is played. I would ask the member to withdraw and apologise.
Peck Mark: Families Commission Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Procedure 
Peck Mark: Families Commission Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:614;Page:10315] 
MARK PECK (Labour—Invercargill) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Robertson H V Ross: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Approvals and Enforcement) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Robertson H V Ross: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Approvals and Enforcement) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:623;Page:18786] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Just before I put that motion I tell members I have an amendment in the name of the Hon Dr Nick Smith. It is an amendment to omit the words: “Education and Science Committee” and substitute the words: “Local Government and Environment Committee” and to omit the words: “and that the committee report the bill finally to the House by 3 June 2005.”
Roy Heather: Government Communications Security Bureau Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH 
Roy Heather: Government Communications Security Bureau Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH 
[Volume:607;Page:4360] 
HEATHER ROY (ACT NZ) 
: 
 Yes I would like to seek leave to do that. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member is seeking leave. Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There appears to be none.
Tabling of Documents — Pamphlet—Whose Country Is It? 
Tabling of Documents — Pamphlet—Whose Country Is It? 
[Volume:614;Page:10444] 
Tabling of Documents 
Pamphlet— 
Whose Country Is It? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I seek leave to table the details of the Labour Party’s latest propaganda campaign on talkback and radio shows and in the newspapers put out by Ann Hartley with respect to the very worthy pamphlet  
Whose Country Is It?. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Question time resumed.
[Volume:619;Page:15077] 
In the future things may well change I say to the member. Who knows? But in allowing the cultivation of hemp we believed we needed to do it carefully. We needed to do it in a considered way and we needed to retain good controls over it. I do share the member’s surprise however that he received such a hard time at the select committee from ACT—the party that believes in free enterprise the party that believes in agriculture. ACT was not even prepared to give hemp a go when it comes to an industrial crop. I say to Gerrard Eckhoff that I hope he never applies for a licence to grow hemp should it be successful in New Zealand. Maybe he would not qualify under the good character provisions! However he will give us his assurance tonight that he will never grow it even if it is a boomer crop for New Zealand and provides many many benefits.
Vote: Oaths Modernisation Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Oaths Modernisation Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:20728] 
A party vote  was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 84 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 35 
New Zealand National 26; ACT New Zealand 9. 
Motion agreed to.
Ryall Tony: Copyright (Parallel Importation of Films and Onus of Proof) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
Ryall Tony: Copyright (Parallel Importation of Films and Onus of Proof) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:612;Page:9391] 
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I would like to make two points. First will you draw this matter to the attention of the Speaker because my rights as a member of Parliament have been denied because of a clerical error in the Clerk’s Office? Frankly it is not good enough when every other member of the House who participated in the debate knows that the Clerk’s Office has denied the Opposition its right to participate. I want to know what you will do about fixing that. Secondly will you therefore give us a more generous opportunity to express our views in the Committee stage given that the Clerk has denied our rights to participate in a second reading debate?
Pillay Lynne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Pillay Lynne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:622;Page:17672] 
4.  
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What reports has he received on possible changes to school enrolment scheme legislation? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am sorry Lynne Pillay. The Minister will sit down. Lynne Pillay is at the back of the House. She is entitled to be heard in silence and was not. I will now have her ask her question again. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: What reports has he received on possible changes to school enrolment scheme legislation? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will not warn members again. I will ask a member to leave if there is any more noise during the asking of a question. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 I have recently seen suggestions that children “can be herded like cattle to a local school of the Government’s choosing.” Those comments ignore the fact that under current enrolment legislation—passed by a National Government—parents are not forced to send their children to any particular school. In fact they are guaranteed the right only to send their child to their local school if they so choose. I suspect that once Dr Brash looks at the facts and consults the member for Epsom he will do yet another flip-flop on this issue. 
Lynne Pillay 
: Has the removal of school zoning been considered before? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Yes. School zoning was abolished under the previous National Government which was then forced to bring it back in 1998—well supported by Christine Fletcher—in order to combat overcrowding. Removing zoning did not result in parents or students getting greater choice; it resulted in school principals hand-picking their students. This Government believes in the right of students to go to the school next door. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That answer was too long. 
Hon Bill English 
: If the Minister believes that his current rigid zoning policy is so good why did he put out a press release in November claiming that the number of schools with zones was dropping and that that was a good thing when the real figures showed that the number of schools with zones was rising; when will he admit his flip-flop on that issue? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I have already apologised on this matter. I relied on inaccurate figures. I also relied in making the statements on the support for zoning from Bill English who said that abolishing it would not work. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Can the Minister confirm that school-zoning legislation was reintroduced by the National Government in late 1998 that the legislation had the full support of the ACT party at the time and that the only person in the House to raise objections to that zoning legislation was one Trevor Mallard? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Yes. I think the legislation that went through at the time could have been better. That is why we improved it when we came into Government. 
Question time interrupted.
Hide Rodney: Sale of Liquor Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Hide Rodney: Sale of Liquor Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12363] 
RODNEY HIDE (ACT) 
: 
 As I said earlier the ACT party opposes this bill. I was interested to hear from members who said that a monopoly is a choice that people make. That seems to me to fly in the face of cultural diversity and recognising that minorities have a right and a view. If we say that voting 51 percent makes something right then I think we in this country are in for a rather rough old spin. It seems to me that not everybody in an area wants to buy their alcohol from a licensing trust. It seems a bit tough that the majority can impose that will on them. I would have thought that Maori members opposite in particular would recognise the fact that rights cannot be taken away just by a vote. 
I am pleased that the rice wine issue has been addressed. However I do worry about the Minister who never bothered to address it until Pansy Wong and the ACT party introduced amendments in the Committee stage and made it an issue. The Minister had the opportunity to fix that issue a long time ago. We have to say that sometimes we overprescribe what New Zealanders can and cannot do in order to enforce morals better behaviour and the way in which we think people should live their lives. When we get down to defining what is a supermarket a Chinese supermarket what is Chinese cooking wine and what is not Chinese cooking wine then fundamentally we should rethink some of the ways in which we go about our legislation. 
I am very disappointed that the Minister managed to persuade Government members to vote for training of general managers of liquor outlets. It is an unnecessary bureaucratic measure. It will impose costs on people to the advantage of particular trainers and no problem has ever been identified that this particular legislation is addressing. I heard the Minister say that he will develop training programmes in consultation with the industry. That is recorded in  
Hansard 
 and I hope that he is as good as his word and that his concept of consultation is better than the consultation he has delivered in developing this bill. 
Certainly it is a lot better than the $1.3 million worth of phoney consultation the Minister of Corrections Paul Swain got himself involved in. So I hope that his consultation is a whole lot better than the $1.3 million of fake consultation with the Tainui people that unfortunately has seen a fallout with the Tainui people today. I believe that the Department of Corrections took advantage of a difficult situation with the Tainui people. I do not blame the Tainui people. I blame the Department of Corrections that has caused untold mischief in the Waikato and amongst Tainui. The fact that Minister Paul Swain can make light of it and laugh at it is a disgrace.
Carter John: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
Carter John: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8166] 
JOHN CARTER (Senior Whip—NZ National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I wanted to raise this point of order after the vote had been taken because I did not in any way want to challenge your right to make the decision that you made. I think it is appropriate for me to point out as a long-standing whip that the debate on that part started at 8 o’clock and went on for just 35 minutes—seven speeches by my count—which quite honestly is not the norm. It is unusual for a part not to have at least a 45-minute debate. I have been noticing that we seem to be going through this legislation at quite a rapid rate. It may well be that the wish is to finish the bill tonight but given that that part particularly was an extensive part as are other parts I do ask you as Chair—or whoever may be presiding—to ensure that there is opportunity for at least a reasonable contribution by members. At least two members who were seeking the call did not get a chance to make a contribution and I do not think it is unreasonable that on any part particularly one of that size we have nine contributions rather than seven.
Parker David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Parker David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:614;Page:10663] 
10.  
DAVID PARKER (Labour—Otago) 
 to the  
Associate Minister for Rural Affairs 
: How is the Government improving the delivery of rural health services in New Zealand? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Associate Minister for Rural Affairs) 
: 
 This Government’s mobile surgical services initiative has completed its second year exceeding its targets for operations. In the past year the service has travelled the length of the country delivering well over 1000 surgical procedures to people in rural communities. Just yesterday the mobile bus was winner of a United Nations – sponsored world information communications award in Geneva for its achievements in delivering first-class surgical services to people in rural areas. 
David Parker 
: In practice what does the success of the mobile surgical bus mean for rural New Zealanders? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: It means that more than 300 different procedures are available to those using the facility and it means a high number of operations carried out in each centre. For example in the year ended October 2003 there were 143 procedures in Warkworth 89 in Taihape 67 in Balclutha 63 in Gore and 56 in Dunstan Hospital at Clyde. 
Katherine Rich 
: With regard to the Minister’s reference to Dunstan Hospital what is the Minister doing about rural services in particular the services provided by Dunstan Hospital? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: I understand there have been negotiations with the Minister of Health and I think we are likely to see a very very positive outcome for the people of that region assisted by the great advocacy of the local member.
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:20993] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 374 in the name of the Hon Phil Goff to Part 2 be agreed to.
McNair Craig: Government Superannuation Fund Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading 
McNair Craig: Government Superannuation Fund Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading 
[Volume:606;Page:3720] 
CRAIG McNAIR (NZ First) 
: 
 I take pleasure in rising and speaking on this bill on behalf of my New Zealand First colleagues like Mr Jim Peters and Mr Dail Jones who are with us in the House today.  
Gerry Brownlee 
: Give us some substance.  
CRAIG McNAIR 
: Mr Brownlee should not worry; I will give the House some substance unlike the National Party over there which is shrinking by the day. New Zealand First supports this bill. I agree with Mr Carter the National speaker who was happy that the bill is retrospective to 1 July 2002; New Zealand First is very supportive of that fact as well. New Zealand First is also supportive of the aim of the bill which is to amend the Government Superannuation Fund Act of 1956 to repeal the provisions of the Act that suspend the payment of benefits to widows or widowers in the event of remarriage and to provide for the restoration of suspended benefits under those provisions.  
New Zealand First is also supportive of the change to the allowances paid to children of deceased members under the old scheme by replacing the prescribed fixed annual allowance with an inflation-adjusted allowance as provided for in the new scheme. New Zealand First supports good legislation and it opposes bad legislation unlike some parties in this House that just oppose for the sake of opposing. [ 
Interruption 
] I do not know what that Labour member said when she interjected but New Zealand First is a party that is sensible and will support any legislation that is sensible and common-sense. I am very glad to speak on behalf of my New Zealand First colleagues. We do support the second reading of this bill.
Okeroa Mahara: Supreme Court Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Okeroa Mahara: Supreme Court Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:8998] 
MAHARA OKEROA (NZ Labour—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Catchpole Brent: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Catchpole Brent: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:614;Page:10403] 
BRENT CATCHPOLE (NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. A member of the Government made an unparliamentary comment during the last part of the previous speaker’s speech. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am sorry I did not hear it. If the member made an unparliamentary comment I would ask him to desist. 
BRENT CATCHPOLE 
: Would you like me to say who it was? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: All I can say is that I never heard it.
Copeland Gordon: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Copeland Gordon: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:616;Page:11788] 
11.  
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What specific measures if any is the Government proposing to assist the export sector? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 In addition to providing a supportive business environment with measures such as one of the lowest tax wedges in the OECD this year’s Budget will provide a pragmatic World Trade Organization - compliant approach to business assistance with increased support for exporters. Obviously the member will have to await the Budget on 27 May for the details. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Can he inform the House whether the Government would be prepared to resolve the border security dispute with the Trade and Travel Industry Coalition in its favour given the record January trade deficit—the highest since 1986—and the perilous state of our export industries? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: On the border security issue only 40 percent of the proposed charge is paid by exporters. The remainder is paid by importers who are the reverse side of the trade balance that the member refers to and by re-exporters. The travel industry itself is probably the most subsidised single sector of the New Zealand economy. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Can the Minister provide details of any Government initiative over the last 12 months that has truly helped the ailing export sector? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Far be it from me to dwell upon the present but the potential re-entry into managing the exchange rate is certainly designed to be of some assistance to the exporting sector. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Has the Minister considered the idea of accelerated depreciation allowances for tax purposes on all plant and machinery used principally to produce exports as one way of alleviating the export crisis? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: At present of course we already have accelerated depreciation unlike Australia which does not have accelerated depreciation. The Government has undertaken a lot of work on depreciation itself which is more complicated than just changing the acceleration rate.
Hide Rodney: Points of Order — Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) Questions for Written Answer 
Hide Rodney: Points of Order — Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) Questions for Written Answer 
[Volume:607;Page:4272] 
RODNEY HIDE (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I said that I would look at the question. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Yes but I raised this difficulty you have assisted me many many times before with written questions you have always assisted me in a positive and helpful way and I appreciate that but it takes time. The reason Ministers dodge questions is to avoid time— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No now the member is going too wide. I will give him every assistance. I always do.
Vote: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4) — In Committee 
Vote: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4) — In Committee 
[Volume:619;Page:14569] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 74 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 40 
New Zealand National 27; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 4. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Ian Ewen-Street to clause 67 be agreed to: 
to delete from paragraph (a) of new section 33 all the words after the words “section 2(2) of the Fisheries Amendment Act 1994” and substitute the following new subparagraphs: 
(i)In area SCI 1 allocate quota based on 1990-91 catch history (excluding the catch history of the vessel  
Drysdale 
) adjusted to reflect the errors identified by the Primary Production Committee. 
(ii)In area SCI 2 allocate quota based on 1990-91 catch history (excluding the catch history of the vessel  
Drysdale 
) adjusted to reflect the errors identified by the Primary Production Committee. 
(ii)In area SCI 4W allocate quota based on best 12 consecutive months catch history from 1 October 1991 to 30 September 1993 (excluding the catch history of the vessels  
Drysdale 
 and  
Petersen 
) adjusted to reflect errors identified by the Primary Production Committee. Divide unallocated quota equally between qualifying fishers. 
(iv)In area SCI 4E reduce size of this area to the area so it becomes a “Chatham Islands quota management area”. Allocate quota to fishers based on best 12 consecutive months catch history from 1 October 1990 to 30 September 1992 (excluding the catch history of the vessels  
Drysdale 
 and  
Petersen 
). Allocate remaining quota to Chatham Islands Enterprises Trust. 
(v)In area SCI 4R the residual area of the previous area SCI 4 allocate quota equally between qualifying fishers. 
(vi)In areas SCI 5 7 and 9 allocate quota equally between qualifying fishers. 
(vii)In area SCI 6A allocate quota based on 1991-92 catch history (excluding the catch history of the vessels  
Petersen 
 and  
Drysdale 
). 
(viii)In area SCI 6B allocate quota based on the 1992-93 catch history. 
: “Qualifying fishers” is defined to include all existing permit holders plus those who should have been scampi permit holders had the Ministry managed the fishery lawfully reasonably and fairly plus those listed by the Primary Production Committee as having been treated unfairly.
Newman Muriel: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Urgent Questions Questions to Members 
Newman Muriel: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Urgent Questions Questions to Members 
[Volume:620;Page:16017] 
1 
.  
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT) 
 on behalf of  
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Social Services Committee 
: Does she intend to call for further evidence or submissions on the Charities Bill? 
GEORGINA BEYER (Chairperson of the Social Services Committee) 
: 
 Calling for further evidence or submissions on the Charities Bill is a matter for the Social Services Committee to decide. 
Deborah Coddington 
: Is the chairperson prepared to give an assurance on behalf of the committee that every organisation that provided a submission on the Charities Bill will be consulted on proposed changes to the bill; if not why not? 
GEORGINA BEYER 
: No I am not prepared to give that assurance. That is a matter for the committee to discuss.
Peck Mark: Resource Management (Aquaculture Moratorium Extension) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Peck Mark: Resource Management (Aquaculture Moratorium Extension) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:616;Page:11669] 
MARK PECK (Labour—Invercargill) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Brownlee Gerry: Personal Explanations — Civil Aviation Authority—Allegations 
Brownlee Gerry: Personal Explanations — Civil Aviation Authority—Allegations 
[Volume:619;Page:14593] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I will take the opportunity to explain our objection. Mr Duynhoven is not wanting to explain to the House something that relates to a personal matter. Mr Hide’s questioning of him was very much of him as a Minister and if he is to put the record straight then quite clearly he should make a ministerial statement.
Cullen Michael: Debate on Crown Entities Public Organisations and State Enterprises — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Cullen Michael: Debate on Crown Entities Public Organisations and State Enterprises — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:617;Page:13236] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 To be blunt I do not feel any great need to respond because we are now nearly at the end of the 2003-04 financial year and this debate is about performance during 2002-03. I have always felt that this debate is already somewhat of a mockery because it takes place far too long after the events to which it refers. It seems to me that it is quite important to get on with the debate rather than waiting the 6 months that have been mentioned as that would really make the debate completely useless.
Wilson Margaret: Ngati Tama Claims Settlement Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Wilson Margaret: Ngati Tama Claims Settlement Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:613;Page:10183] 
Hon MARGARET WILSON (Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
I rise to say that the Government does not support the amendment. The whole purpose of the treaty settlement process is to enable both parties to move on in a new relationship by reaching a mutual agreement on the issues that become the subject of the settlement deed. That is in fact the whole purpose of the exercise. The amendment would undermine that. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Metiria Turei to clause 12 be agreed to: 
to omit this clause.
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
[Volume:613;Page:10219] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Yes it is intended to set up a special select committee whose membership will be determined in accordance with party proportionality and by each party’s own party whips and leadership. So there will be four Labour members two National members and one each from the other minor parties. Initially it is intended that the fisheries legislation will go to that select committee but it is probable that we will seek to send also foreshore and seabed legislation and aquaculture legislation. The fisheries legislation as I say is intended to go through its first reading on Thursday of the next sitting week. The other legislation can be anticipated early in the new year.