edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Hartley Ann: Supreme Court Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Hartley Ann: Supreme Court Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:9001] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Please be seated. I have made a ruling on it. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. If you have made a ruling on that then it is contrary to what the Speaker has just told us. He said that we could not refer to groups of people in derogatory terms. That is what he said. He made it very clear. Mr Robson most definitely meant his comment as a derogatory term. He should refer to parties of the Opposition either in a way that presumably does not breach the Speaker’s ruling or by their particular name. 
Hon MATT ROBSON 
: Speaking to the point of order I point out that we are entering into the realm of stupidity in my opinion. The lexical terms “right” and “left” go back to the convention in 1789 of the French Revolution. They are accepted as general terms for parties to the right and to the left. I do not find it offensive if anyone says that I am in a party to the left—or a party to the right. That is fine. In my opinion this point of order is just pure sophistry. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. The member may not find offence at being called a member of a party on the extreme left. However New Zealand First is New Zealand’s only common-sense centre of the road party and we like to be called that. We did not leave the parties that we were once members of—like some from Labour when it was a right-wing loony-tune party. Another one—[ 
Interruption 
] No we did not change our name seven times. This party has had just one name. The party that member belonged to changed its name seven times. What an effrontery! But that member should describe us as a party of the Opposition or talk about us as New Zealand First and the only New Zealand centre party—and do it properly. If he wants to get narrow about it that is it but again if he has been through seven parties any description would fit him.
Vote: Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 3) — First Reading 
Vote: Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 3) — First Reading 
[Volume:620;Page:15989] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 3) be now read a first time. 
Ayes 111 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 9 
ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Bill read a first time and referred to the Regulations Review Committee.
Vote: Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:624;Page:19378] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Legislation (Incorporation by Reference) Bill be now read a first time. 
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. 
Bill read a first time.
Tamihere John: Customs and Excise (Motor Spirits) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Tamihere John: Customs and Excise (Motor Spirits) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:623;Page:18622] 
JOHN TAMIHERE (Labour—Tamaki Makaurau) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Voting — Correction 
Voting — Correction 
[Volume:621;Page:16380] 
Voting 
Correction 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Before I adjourn the House I wish to correct the vote in the Animal Welfare (Restriction on Docking of Dogs’ Tails) Bill. The Ayes should read 79 and the Noes 37.
Vote: Adjournment 
Vote: Adjournment 
[Volume:627;Page:22384] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the House do now adjourn until Friday 12 August 2005. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 43 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 3. 
Motion agreed to.
Pillay Lynne: Employment Relations Law Reform Bill — First Reading 
Pillay Lynne: Employment Relations Law Reform Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:614;Page:10669] 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
: 
 This bill is about fairness. It is about ensuring that parties do bargain in good faith. It is about providing security and certainty for vulnerable workers. It is about ensuring that the principles of the Equal Pay Act are applied. Where is the fairness in the lowest most vulnerable workers in our country losing their jobs one day and the next day being told they have their job back but their pay is being cut by 50c an hour? Where is the fairness in unions and workers doing their best to bargain in good faith for a fair collective agreement only to be met with a flat refusal or a fob-off from an employer? 
 Where is the fairness in situations where unions and workers have put much time and energy—and workers have paid a fee—to negotiate a deal to see it undermined by those hard-earned terms and conditions being automatically passed on to non-union workers? Where is the fairness when employers deliberately pay women less than men for doing the same job? The answer is that there is no fairness in those situations. The Opposition members who disagree—and I can see them doing it that poor sad little group—are behind the times. They are not in touch with workers workers’ families or the many employers who do support these amendments and the polls show it. 
I am proud to commend this bill to the House. In doing that I want to acknowledge the unions the workers and the many employers who are committed to ensuring that fairness and equity happens in our workplaces. The result of that is productive working relationships—something that party would not know anything about. Productive working relationships are good for business and good for polls.
Pillay Lynne: Crimes Amendment Bill (No 6) — In Committee Third Reading 
Pillay Lynne: Crimes Amendment Bill (No 6) — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:7097] 
LYNNE PILLAY (NZ Labour—Waitakere) 
: 
 This is a common-sense bill from a common-sense Minister and a common-sense Government. I commend it to the House.
Swain Paul: Corrections Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
Swain Paul: Corrections Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:13010] 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: Maybe not but I think the member should judge it at the end. One great contribution we had before the dinner break was from the Hon Richard Prebble who in an impassioned request pointed out that unlike hotels we were requiring people to launder the mattress. I thought he raised—in a witty and humourous way as is his wont—that that was perhaps somewhat extreme. After considerable pressure and thinking about it the Government has caved in. I point out to members that my amendment to clause 71 which is the clause the member talked about adds a further subclause (4) which states: “In this section—bed includes a mattress; bedding does not include a mattress”. [ 
Interruption 
] I think this will be his finest hour. It is a very sensible thing. I enjoyed the member’s contribution—it was witty and to the point and if he finally decides to go is the kind of contribution that we will miss very much in this House.
Tanczos Nandor: Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Tanczos Nandor: Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:612;Page:9454] 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 The Greens will be opposing this bill. We had concerns about it when it was first introduced and although we support the provisions that allow the use of buccal samples as a less invasive way of obtaining DNA we have expressed concern about the extension of the powers to take DNA samples by force or coercive means from people who are suspected—not convicted; merely suspects—of committing a burglary. 
We are even more concerned about the bill as reported back from the Law and Order Committee because it now includes a number of other offences and we believe that the bill as reported back goes beyond what are acceptable limits on the ability of the police to take samples by coercive means. I refer to appendix B of the select committee report where it refers to a number of offences many of them very serious offences and also to any other offence punishable by a maximum penalty of at least 7 years’ imprisonment. Perhaps my memory is failing me but as far as I recall that includes stealing a goat and it seems rather bizarre that someone suspected of stealing a goat is able to have DNA compulsorily obtained from them. 
We believe that this bill goes far too far and we cannot support it. We will be supporting during the Committee stage the Supplementary Order Paper from the Minister. We believe that it does include a number of sensible provisions and if the bill is to proceed it will be sensible to include those provisions. In particular we think that allowing buccal samples to be taken from children under certain circumstances and with their consent is a sensible measure. We had discussions with the Minister about that and we assured ourselves that there are some adequate safeguards to protect the rights of children in those circumstances. So we will support that Supplementary Order Paper. But we are unable to support the bill through further stages. I will not speak at great length about that now but I will speak during further stages of the bill.
Eckhoff Gerrard: New Organisms and Other Matters Bill — In Committee 
Eckhoff Gerrard: New Organisms and Other Matters Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8858] 
GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I did not hear a word of what Mr Tisch said but we are voting against clause 1. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Please there must be silence during voting. Mr Tisch has raised a point of order but it is not really a matter for a point of order.
Burton Mark: Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Burton Mark: Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:625;Page:20193] 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 I shall take a short call to respond briefly to a number of points made by members. 
Firstly Dr Mapp’s comment about the preamble and the historical account missed the point that this is an agreed historical account of what was. It records what was lost to the people at the time and arguably records therefore in a sense his point that the opportunity for such development that he talked about was lost to those people as a consequence. So it is not a lamenting of that in the sense of wanting to go back to it but rather simply a matter of recording clearly that that is the nature of what was lost. 
In response to the member from the Green Party who talked about access to funding I think the matter she raised is far more complex than she said in terms of some of the issues within the group of people concerned. But it is important to note that the funding she referred to was not direct Government funding; it was Crown Forestry Rental Trust funding and that does put a slightly different complexion on it. 
To go back to the comments from the first member who spoke the Hon Georgina te Heuheu I have to comment on two points. Firstly on the encouragement of optimum participation and mandating I absolutely agree that through each of the participatory processes everything that can be done should be done to encourage participation but we cannot require that people exercise their choice. As legislators we must be confident that the opportunity did exist genuinely easily and freely for those who are eligible to participate in votes and to have their opinion recorded and heard. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.
Tisch Lindsay: Supreme Court Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Tisch Lindsay: Supreme Court Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:9029] 
LINDSAY TISCH (Junior Whip—NZ National) 
: 
 I seek leave that the amendments to clauses 2 and 3 set out on the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper 151 be voted on separately. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is. So the only question forthcoming is that the part stand part.
Peck Mark: Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
Peck Mark: Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:12583] 
MARK PECK (Labour—Invercargill) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Vote: Border Security Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Border Security Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:617;Page:13289] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 13 
New Zealand First 13. 
Noes 104 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Peter Brown to clause 7B be agreed to: 
to omit subsection (6) of section 34A and substitute the following new subsection: 
(6)Nothing in this section requires a strict apportionment of the costs to be recovered for a particular function or service and without limiting the way in which fees or charges may be set at a level or in a way that is determined by calculations that involve an averaging of costs or potential costs.
Worth Richard: Judicial Matters Bill — Second Reading 
Worth Richard: Judicial Matters Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:617;Page:12809] 
RICHARD WORTH (National—Epsom) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I have ruled. This had better be a new point of order. 
RICHARD WORTH 
: It is a new point of order. It is to inquire into your ruling without challenging it to ask whether the Opposition is correct that the relevant Minister is the Attorney-General and to ask whether the Speaker is ruling that invitations have in respect of this bill been issued to the strangers. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: All I can say is what I have previously said. It is a matter for the Minister involved in this case. I am satisfied that the officials are here as they should be.
Prebble Richard: Speaker’s Rulings — Privileges of the House and Speaker's Actions 
Prebble Richard: Speaker’s Rulings — Privileges of the House and Speaker's Actions 
[Volume:611;Page:8738] 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Having just said to Mr Peters that he should use the procedure of written questions and then been told that an honourable member has done so but has had the questions rejected I feel obliged to rise to make two comments to you. 
The first is that Standing Order 112 is not a ban on asking questions. It is a ban only if the Speaker believes that there is a real and substantial danger of prejudice to the trial of a case. My understanding from the media is that Mr Ardern is facing a disorderly conduct offence which is a minor matter. It will not be heard in front of a jury. It will be heard by a District Court judge and it stretches credibility to believe that a District Court judge would be influenced by—I do not want to be insulting to the member—a written question put down by a member of Parliament. I find that very hard to believe. 
My second point—and I completely accept the statements you made to this House—is that if you have not directed the police in any way it would seem to me that it is extremely difficult to see how an answer you gave could in any way influence or prejudice the case. If the question was put down to the Minister of Police the Minister of Police in New Zealand is statutorily barred from giving directions to the police in a prosecution. If he has given directions then our Standing Orders should not be used to protect him from that matter. I am not saying that he has; I am assuming that he has not. In that case it is very hard to see how those questions—and I know that I am speaking hypothetically because I have not seen them—could be ruled out under Standing Order 112 especially when members look at  
Speakers’ Rulings 
 on the matter. For example I remind you of Speaker’s ruling 25/3 from Speaker Wall who said that the only reason for that ruling was that the discussion could prejudice the case. I would be incredulous if a member of Parliament could think up a question that would influence a District Court judge. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thank the member for his comments and also the member who raised the matter. I appreciate the way he raised it. I shall give some thought to the matter and I will have a ruling by the end of the afternoon.
Parker David: Rotorua District (Easter Sunday Shop Trading) Bill — Second Reading 
Parker David: Rotorua District (Easter Sunday Shop Trading) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:607;Page:4445] 
DAVID PARKER (NZ Labour—Otago) 
: 
 I am one of those old-fashioned people who like—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: This is a member’s bill on which people will have a conscience vote and I think they should be heard in relative silence. 
DAVID PARKER 
: I am one of those old-fashioned people who like commercial-free days and there are not many left. I believe they help communities and families but I am not sure that I am right. I think times have maybe moved on. I was on the Commerce Committee that heard the submissions on this bill and I was one of those who heard a request from amongst others the Retail Merchants Association which said we should not pass this bill but that we should pass more general legislation that will apply the rule proposed here throughout the country. It was hard for me as a member of that select committee to put it in context. One of the underlying issues is how significant a move is this? In a world where many other parts of our economy are already working on these days maybe it is not very significant. That is one of the matters that the working-group will be able to advise us on. There are large numbers of nurses and policemen and people in manufacturing industries like those at Tiwai Point and other large places of employment who already work on these days. Maybe the horse has already bolted. If it has then I probably approve of wide-ranging legislation to reform the law for all areas. 
A case in point in my own electorate is Wanaka and indeed Queenstown. We have heard Queenstown mentioned previously but it cannot actually trade on Easter Sunday at the moment though strangely it can trade on Good Friday. In Wanaka the population goes up by approximately 10 times its normal level for its biennial air show when its population swells from less than 5000 to more than 50000 people but the people in Wanaka cannot trade at that time. People in Wanaka say: “This is an important event for us economically. We should be able to trade.” and I find that argument quite persuasive. None the less I do want to have this put in context. 
I was interested in an idea that I heard for the first time today from the Rt Hon Winston Peters. He said we should perhaps be delegating this matter to local authorities which is an interesting idea that I had not thought of before. Maybe the answer is to let different communities make the decision for themselves. On the whole although I think there is a need for a review of the law that review process is under way through the working-group that has been set up and I do not think we should change the law in an ad hoc way in the meantime. 
I will be voting against the bill to the disappointment of my colleague Steve Chadwick who is supporting this so vigorously on behalf of her community.
Simich Clem: Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Bill — In Committee 
Simich Clem: Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8728] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The member is quite right and I am sure that member has learnt if not his lesson the way it should be done. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 141 in the name of the Hon Judith Tizard to clause 77 be agreed to.
Collins Judith: National Library of New Zealand (Te Puna Matauranga o Aotearoa) Bill — Third Reading 
Collins Judith: National Library of New Zealand (Te Puna Matauranga o Aotearoa) Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:608;Page:5115] 
JUDITH COLLINS (NZ National—Clevedon) 
: 
 I rise to support the bill and I am very pleased to be able to commend the Minister for her comments on the fact that all parties in the House have supported this bill all the way through. I would particularly like to commend the members of the National Party who were on the Education and Science Committee Simon Power and Dr Paul Hutchison. I note that Dr Hutchison had the brilliant idea as a good practical man—he was formerly an obstetrician before coming to this House—that we should have a look at the library before we considered a bill about it. There is nothing like a little bit of fieldwork so to speak. [ 
Interruption 
] I note that young Darren Hughes is making a comment which is good. It is good to see that he is working. 
Library people—I note that there are several here today and hopefully many are listening at work—are a special breed of people. They are the people who in many ways keep a lot of our culture together. Culture is not just about the ability to play a violin to do a particular dance or to make a particular food. It is actually a lot about the way we live. Specific mention has been made about the need to clarify the status of oral history under the Official Information Act because it is very very important for the history of New Zealand and for the emerging of a New Zealand culture that we actually understand the histories and the reasons that certain things happened in this country and particularly also in politics. 
We all come from families that have oral histories. Some particular cultures in New Zealand have more of a history of oral culture because they did not actually have a culture that had writing or some other form of written communication and for them in particular oral history is most important. However today with our Official Information Act and Privacy Act it is also incredibly important that oral histories are kept because a lot of people do not want to write down too much in case it comes back to haunt them. I note Annette King is looking up at that comment. 
It is particularly pleasing to have a bill once in a while that we can actually support. I note the work of Mr Brian Donnelly who is here today and who was the chairperson of the Education and Science Committee and who helped steer this through. It is always difficult I am sure for any Government to be able to get full party support on a bill and it is very nice that we can finally say that there is in fact a promise that Labour made that it actually kept but obviously with the help of all the other parties in the House. [ 
Interruption 
] I can see that that particular member is now awake. 
I would particularly like to commend the bill to the House and to say that the National Party is particularly pleased to be able to support it and the librarians who do the wonderful work at the National Library. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I call Bernie Ogilvy.
Pettis Jill: Appropriation (2004/05 Estimates) Bill — Third Reading Imprest Supply Debate 
Pettis Jill: Appropriation (2004/05 Estimates) Bill — Third Reading Imprest Supply Debate 
[Volume:619;Page:14958] 
JILL PETTIS (Labour—Whanganui) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I did not interrupt during the member’s speech but when he was making references to the Palestinian leader Deborah Coddington called out: “I’d shoot him.” I do not think that is appropriate language to use in this House and I ask that she be asked to withdraw and apologise. 
Deborah Coddington 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The matter should have been raised at the time.
Hartley Ann: New Organisms and Other Matters Bill — In Committee 
Hartley Ann: New Organisms and Other Matters Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:9071] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is not. The result is now 92 in favour and 21 against.
Ogilvy Bernie: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
Ogilvy Bernie: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
[Volume:618;Page:14361] 
BERNIE OGILVY (United Future) 
: 
 I want to say a few things about the export education funding in the appropriations. Forty million dollars has been set aside for the next 4 years. Yet we know in this Committee that there is over $2 billion coming back for this nation through export education. This is a huge business and I do not believe anyone is unaware of that by this date. It is such a good business that it earns for our nation by way of GST and income taxes probably $500 million. It is a huge business it makes huge dollars it is increasing and growing each year and I say that this is very good for our nation. 
I think the $40 million that has been set aside in this appropriation is great but it does not completely say what we should deal with with a business of this size. One of the things I was appalled by in the select committee when I asked some questions about who runs this business in the New Zealand Qualifications Authority was that 106 staff run the entire thing. I asked very specifically who ran it and was told that everybody ran it. I want to ask the Government: if one were running a $2 billion business surely one would want somebody like a Ralph Norris at least at the head of the show because he knows how to run that level of business. It is a great shame I believe when 106 people running a huge business are in their own words non-business types. 
I believe this is a business that could grow to $20 billion and move forward. I believe the Government ought to be really really stressing how to invest in the best people to make this business work. I am very very pleased by the way that it is making huge profits. I am troubled that many people around this country are perplexed that they have to pay an export levy each year—which adds up I am told to about $3.5 million or maybe a bit more—which is collected by fees from all those who have language schools in New Zealand and run those programmes. A lot of angst was suffered to get that $3.5 million. Considering the half a billion-dollar surplus at least that comes back to the Government by way of profits through tax I ask why the Government wants $3.5 million from providers around the country when in point of fact the business is making such an enormous profit. This policy has put a whole lot of people’s backs up—everybody from universities polytechnics and private training providers—the whole lot were opposed to the export levy from day one. 
So the only advice I have to the Government at this point is that it is great to see the expenditure but why cause so much anguish in and among the industry of education? I am very very sad that basically—as someone told me over the weekend—the Labour Government is really becoming a closet capitalist party and making money and profits; yet denying this.
Hunt Jonathan: Urgent Debates Declined — Government Transport Package Foreshore and Seabed Human Rights Review Tribunal Decision Points of Order 
Hunt Jonathan: Urgent Debates Declined — Government Transport Package Foreshore and Seabed Human Rights Review Tribunal Decision Points of Order 
[Volume:614;Page:10725] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: This is an argument that can be made by anybody in this House if they wish to do so and I am sure they will. But it is not my position as Speaker to enter into this area.
Prebble Richard: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Prebble Richard: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:608;Page:5250] 
6.  
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: In light of accountancy firm KPMG’s survey of 68 countries that shows New Zealand’s corporate tax rate of 33c is above the OECD average of 31.68 percent and that seven of the 30 OECD countries have cut their corporate tax rates over the last year will the Government lower New Zealand’s corporate tax rate to help New Zealand compete in the global economy for investment? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 No. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: When reaching the decision not to cut corporate tax rates did the Minister take any note of the statement by KPMG senior tax partner Mr Sharma that New Zealand needed to offer a better tax rate to attract corporates from Australia: “To compete with countries outside its close geography New Zealand should offer a rate closer to 20 percent.”? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No. I note that Mr Sharma thought the tax rate before 1989 was 28 percent which is a 20 percent error. I note also that the total corporate tax levels in New Zealand are low by OECD standards because we do not have a range of other taxes on the corporate sector. 
David Cunliffe 
: What are the Government’s major priorities in the area of company tax reform? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: We want to make it simpler especially for small and medium sized enterprises. There is a big work programme under way and people will have to wait approximately 2 weeks minus about 10 minutes or so to find out some of the details. 
Dr Don Brash 
: What is the Minister’s response to KPMG’s senior tax partner Brahma Sharma’s comment that he has spoken to several clients over the past year including one looking to establish a processing factory and another a regional distribution centre who have taken their business to Australia after being disheartened by New Zealand’s corporate tax rate; and how does the Minister propose to encourage investment in New Zealand if we cannot at least create a somewhat level playing field by meeting Australia’s corporate tax rate? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: My response would be to send him a copy of the statement made by that member that reducing the corporate tax rate alone would not have any material beneficial effect on growth. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Does the Minister agree that because New Zealand customarily runs interest rates higher than Australian and other overseas jurisdictions the cost of capital is higher for New Zealand companies and would not a cut in the company tax rate therefore be a good way to create a level playing field and restore their competitive position? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: As the head of I think it is Fletcher Building has pointed out—who is an Australian—the total burden of corporate tax in Australia is higher. Australia has payroll taxes and a range of other taxes which corporates do not have to bear in New Zealand.
Mallard Trevor: State Sector Amendment Bill (No 3) — First Reading 
Mallard Trevor: State Sector Amendment Bill (No 3) — First Reading 
[Volume:614;Page:10629] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of State Services) 
: 
 I move  
That the State Sector Amendment Bill (No 3) be now read a first time. 
 I will recommend to the House that the bill be referred to the Education and Science Committee for consideration and for reporting back to the House by 19 March 2004. The States Services Commissioner currently has statutory responsibility for collective bargaining for employees of school boards of trustees. This bill gives the commissioner the associated bargaining tools available to employers under the Employment Relations Act including the power to discontinue the pay of striking employees. It does not stop schools funding strikers from locally raised or operational funding if they choose to do so. The bill also includes provisions to limit the payment of redundancy compensation to employees affected when schools merge or close in order to make sure that teachers are not paid twice for the same period of time. It also ensures that principals in those merged schools are appointed on merit. I commend the bill to the House.
Vote: New Zealand Trade and Enterprise Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Vote: New Zealand Trade and Enterprise Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6304] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 35 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Noes 84 
Labour 52; 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 the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 9 be agreed to: 
to omit subclause (1)(d)(ii).
Vote: Overseas Investment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Overseas Investment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:21574] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to 
. 
Ayes 7 
Green Party 7. 
Noes 104 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to.
Goff Phil: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Goff Phil: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:627;Page:22172] 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. You may have noted that Mr Brownlee interjected continually through that point of order. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am sorry I did not. I was concentrating on my own ruling. If he did he— 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Let me assure you that he did so continuously. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Because I did not hear it I will just ask the member to refrain in future from commenting on rulings that are being made.
Tizard Judith: Points of Order — Withdrawal from Chamber—Hon Judith Tizard 
Tizard Judith: Points of Order — Withdrawal from Chamber—Hon Judith Tizard 
[Volume:613;Page:9656] 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Minister of Consumer Affairs) 
: 
 I withdraw and apologise. I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Under Standing Order 343 I seek leave of the House to make a personal explanation about my views on the eastern corridor. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to make that explanation. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Peters Winston: General Debates 
Peters Winston: General Debates 
[Volume:608;Page:5194] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I seek leave to table a letter to the Office of the Controller and Auditor-General on the question of the Fernridge Institute of Training asking for a full-scale investigation. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.
Pillay Lynne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Pillay Lynne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:626;Page:21207] 
8.  
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What reports if any has he received on possible changes to the way schools are funded? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 I have seen suggestions that all targeted funding for teachers’ salaries teacher professional development information and communications technology and learning material should be abolished. School boards would be forced to negotiate individual employment agreements with each teacher and all safeguards for quality teaching would be gone by lunchtime. Those proposals came from Don Brash and Bill English. 
Lynne Pillay 
: What are some of the programmes and initiatives that would be at risk if such a proposal was to be adopted? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: In short heaps. To elaborate there would be no laptops for teachers no targeted literacy and numeracy programmes no monitoring of truancy no free software licences no school transport for rural kids and lots and lots of other things. 
Hon Bill English 
: Does the Minister realise that in the education sector he is making a laughing stock of himself with his childish aggressive strutting over policy he claims exists but never did? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: No. When I spoke to the rural principals yesterday I quoted Don Brash’s speech in which he said that National would move to giving a single grant to schools covering both salaries and operations grants. If schools had a single grant they would not have information and communications technology Microsoft licences or school buses in rural areas.
Hughes Darren: Care of Children Bill — First Reading 
Hughes Darren: Care of Children Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:6713] 
DARREN HUGHES (NZ Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 I rise to join my colleague the member for East Coast—[ 
Interruption 
] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: That person in the gallery is a stranger in the gallery and has no part in this House. I ask the Serjeant-at-Arms to take remedial action. 
A disturbance took place in the gallery and a member of the public was removed on the instruction of the Assistant Speaker. 
DARREN HUGHES 
: I rise to join my colleague the member for East Coast Janet Mackey in supporting the first reading of this bill. It updates and replaces the Guardianship Act from 1968 and moves to recognise the changes that have happened in the 35 years since that Act was written. Of course it also builds on the principles behind the Children Young Persons and Their Families Act which puts the child first in terms of how the State deals with these issues. I believe that that is an important shift in looking after the children of New Zealand. I support the bill.
Donald Rod: Taxation (Annual Rates Venture Capital and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — In Committee 
Donald Rod: Taxation (Annual Rates Venture Capital and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:16583] 
ROD DONALD (Musterer—Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Now that the real Minister Mr Cullen has resumed the chair I wonder whether he would like to take a call and address all the very serious issues— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: No no. I tell the member that that is not a matter for a point of order.
Barnett Tim: Christchurch City Council (Robert McDougall Gallery) Land Vesting Bill — Procedure Second Reading 
Barnett Tim: Christchurch City Council (Robert McDougall Gallery) Land Vesting Bill — Procedure Second Reading 
[Volume:611;Page:8779] 
TIM BARNETT (NZ Labour—Christchurch Central) 
: 
 I seek leave for the Christchurch City Council (Robert McDougall Gallery) Land Vesting Bill to proceed directly to its third reading following it being read a second time and for there to be no debate on the third reading.
Shirley Ken: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Shirley Ken: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:608;Page:5511] 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 There is a step missing in that sequence as it has been reported to you Mr Speaker. There was a point of order on a procedural matter that I took prior to the putting of the closure motion. We had about a minute to go until 6 o’clock many of us had been in the House until 5 a.m. this morning and tempers were perhaps a bit frayed. Some of us were in a fractious mood and looking forward to our dinner break. I sought clarification on the fact that there were two discrete votes. In other words the House could take the closure vote only which would mean that we would not have to vote right through the dinner break. The Chair indicated to me that that was the case and that there would not be a problem. At that point we acquiesced with the expectation that we would then suspend the House have our dinner break and come back at 7.30 to take the vote. At that point the Chair said no the rules had changed what she had indicated to me was wrong and we therefore had to continue to vote through the dinner break. I thought that was a rather extraordinary situation to be placed in. I attempted to remonstrate and at that point sought leave to recall the Speaker.
Shirley Ken: Maori Television Service Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled 
Shirley Ken: Maori Television Service Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled 
[Volume:607;Page:5008] 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I know that Mr Hide feels very passionately about this bill and is very keen to participate. I therefore seek leave of the House for Mr Hide to be readmitted at 8.30 p.m. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I thank the member. Leave has just been sought and granted by the House for the term of exclusion to end at 9 p.m. Of course the member is entitled to seek leave to have that time changed. That is then entirely up to the House. Before the member seeks leave if he wishes to do so I will cover a few points. Firstly we are not here to decide on the fairness or otherwise of why the member was excluded from the Chamber. It is a simple fact that the member was excluded and that was done by the Chairperson at the time. The subsequent Chairperson has upheld that decision. Whether anyone was aware of the time of exclusion is relevant but the fact is that the Chair excluded the member for the remainder of the sitting. If the member was not aware of that or his whips were not aware of that then they could have checked with the Chair at the time or with the Serjeant-at-Arms. That is not a difficult procedure. I think that we should continue. The time set by leave of the House that Mr Hide may return is 9 p.m. If there is a further request to be made the member may do so.
Pettis Jill: Independent Police Complaints Authority Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Pettis Jill: Independent Police Complaints Authority Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:606;Page:3675] 
JILL PETTIS (NZ Labour—Whanganui) 
: 
 I am pleased to rise in support of this bill.
Duynhoven Harry: Railways Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Duynhoven Harry: Railways Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:19907] 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Minister for Transport Safety) 
: 
 The Rail Network Bill is about the role of the New Zealand Railways Corporation as an entity. The Railways Bill is much more about the corporation being a participant in the operation of railways. So this provision might be needed for operational reasons. There might have been a slip or something of a temporary nature which means that the speed on the line needs to be regulated. Or there may be some subsidence around bridge footings which is the type of situation where conditions could lead to the need to provide some sort of restriction or maybe even to close the track temporarily. They are operational issues rather than network ownership issues. That is the best explanation I can give the former Minister. I am sure that as a former Minister he will realise the practicality of these issues. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 353 in the name of the Hon Pete Hodgson to clause 4 be agreed to.
Catchpole Brent: Sale of Liquor Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Catchpole Brent: Sale of Liquor Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12362] 
BRENT CATCHPOLE (NZ First) 
: 
 I would just like to take a quick call in this debate. I said most of what I wanted to say in the second reading and in the Committee stage. But I would just like to highlight the fact of licensing trusts being able to reconstitute themselves as community trusts. That is an acceptable way of changing their business practice. We were disappointed that we were unable to get the threshold for the poll lowered but we accept that democracy is the key there. 
On the point of entrapment that Brian Connell has been going on about we expressed some concern at the beginning but if there is any opportunity to stop the blatant misuse of bars selling liquor to under-age people then we say that every effort should be taken to prevent that practice. We go further to say that the age limit should have been raised in the bill. There should have been a clause that reinstated the age limit back to 20 years and that would have reduced a lot of the under-age drinking problems of drunken kids in the streets. 
There is already a requirement to check for IDs. There is also a requirement that the age limit is strictly enforced and it is up to the bars to follow that process. If there is the slightest bit of doubt people are asked for proof of age. Even if a person looks a little bit over age he or she should be asked for ID and proof of age. So it is up to the barkeeper and there should be no out for those bars that blatantly flout the law. 
On the subject of the wineries being able to trade on Easter Sunday that is just a reinstatement of an error that took place in the last amendment legislation of 1999 and that gives the opportunity for wineries to open on Easter Sunday and provide a service to the tourism industry. Tourism is a huge industry in this country and this change is just bringing it back into line with what it was prior to 1999.
Vote: Counter-Terrorism Bill — Second Reading 
Vote: Counter-Terrorism Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:612;Page:9160] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments recommended by the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee by majority be agreed to. 
Ayes 107 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Question agreed to.
Locke Keith: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Locke Keith: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:615;Page:11386] 
12.  
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Immigration 
: Will he review his decision to allow the deportation of a 16-year-old Sri Lankan girl in light of questions being raised as to whether the plan he put in place for her care in Sri Lanka will provide for her welfare or indeed even exists? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Corrections) 
 on behalf of the 
 Associate Minister of Immigration 
: The Associate Minister of Immigration made a decision not to intervene in the removal process. The decision was upheld by the High Court. The Associate Minister has advised that he will not be reviewing his decision. 
Keith Locke 
: Were any of the safe members of the girl’s family in Sri Lanka who the Minister said could help her contacted before she was deported; if so who were they? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: I am not aware of the detail of that. I can confirm that the girl is in a convent and could be there for some time. 
Keith Locke 
: Will the Minister offer the girl and her grandmother the right to return to New Zealand in view of the uncertainty about her future beyond the temporary accommodation she is in and the possibility that she will be separated from her— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Because we are in the last supplementary question I want Mr Mark to stand withdraw and apologise for interjecting on Mr Locke—or whoever it was who interjected on Mr Locke. Who interjected on Mr Locke? 
Ron Mark 
: I withdraw and apologise for interjecting. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Please ask the question again. 
Keith Locke 
: Will the Minister offer the girl and her grandmother the opportunity to return to New Zealand in view of the uncertainty surrounding the girl’s future beyond the temporary accommodation she is in and the possibility that she will be separated from her grandmother who is her prime support person? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: The Associate Minister has advised that he will not be reviewing the case.