edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Vote: Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Vote: Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:618;Page:14009] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments recommended by the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee by majority be agreed to. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Question agreed to.
Hughes Darren: Families Commission Bill — First Reading 
Hughes Darren: Families Commission Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:608;Page:5622] 
DARREN HUGHES (NZ Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 I rise to support the first reading of the Families Commission Bill and I will be voting with my Labour colleagues for its first reading. 
It is very interesting to follow the Hon Richard Prebble the leader of the ACT party who came to the House this afternoon and full of fury rage and rhetoric attacked United Future and those who are actually trying to do something for the families of this country. He gave us his own personal definition of the family as “Mum dad and the kids.” What happens when one parent passes away and there is only one parent and the kids in the family? Mr Prebble said that did not meet his definition of a family. 
He made reference to the fact that the Leader of the Opposition spoke on behalf of the National Party. That is true but the Leader of the Opposition refused point blank to give us his definition of a family or the National Party’s definition of a family. Opposition members are speaking with total rhetoric on this piece of legislation. The commission will be set up with the support of the Labour Party Progressive and United Future because we want to support family units in whatever shape and size they come. We believe that units of love are the best place for children and young people to grow up in. Members of Parliament should be supporting that instead of indulging in rhetoric and empty attacks on parties that are trying to do something about it.
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:20973] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 55 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 11 be agreed to: 
to add the following new paragraph: 
(e)does allow for prisoners to receive some if not all of any compensation payable to them.
Vote: Transport Legislation Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Transport Legislation Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:619;Page:14911] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 7; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 47 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7. 
Motion agreed to.
Goff Phil: Points of Order — Question No. 7 to Minister 18 November  Question No. 6 to Minister 18 November National Party Leadership—Special Debate 
Goff Phil: Points of Order — Question No. 7 to Minister 18 November  Question No. 6 to Minister 18 November National Party Leadership—Special Debate 
[Volume:613;Page:10137] 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Justice) 
: 
I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek your advice in relation to question No. 7 on the Order Paper yesterday. Very serious allegations were made; that armed and drug-crazed home detainees had attacked security guards. I had no information about this but I felt an obligation to investigate this matter for the House. Unfortunately the one security firm that services home detainees has no evidence at all of this happening. I have checked with the police and they have had no complaint. Nor have they received any information from Mr Mark.  
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: We are in the middle of a point of order. [ 
Interruption 
] The member is very close to contravening my statement. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Yesterday Mr Mark was denied the opportunity to table an email. He will not give me a copy of that email because he was denied permission. I wonder whether he could be given the opportunity again to submit that evidence to the House so that I can follow it up.
Smith Nick: Points of Order — Members’ Day—Rescheduling of Debate Parliament Building—Media Access Members’ Day—Rescheduling of Debate 
Smith Nick: Points of Order — Members’ Day—Rescheduling of Debate Parliament Building—Media Access Members’ Day—Rescheduling of Debate 
[Volume:624;Page:19712] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I seek leave of the House for the 2½ hours of members’ time that was lost last evening as a consequence of the Government breaching Standing Order 38 with regard to Ministers being present in the House to be set aside. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that time to be set aside. Is there any objection? There is.
Baldock Larry: Status of Redundancy Payments Bill — First Reading 
Baldock Larry: Status of Redundancy Payments Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:606;Page:4047] 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 First of all I do not think it is appropriate for the deputy leader of National to suggest that we have been bullied into something. We are fully aware of what is going on and we wish to amend our vote. There are no underhand tactics implied here.
Ogilvy Bernie: Civil Union Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Ogilvy Bernie: Civil Union Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17481] 
BERNIE OGILVY (United Future) 
: 
 I rise to speak against this bill and I will tell members why. Following on from comments made by the previous speaker I say we have been sold a picture with nothing in it. I picture a ship at sea that has a big plank extended out from the side and I see the ship being hijacked by a few pirates and the whole crew being asked to walk the plank. I do not believe that that is a situation that 60 to 80 percent of New Zealanders want to be part of. None of us wants to walk that plank just because a minority wishes us to do so while they hijack the ship—in other words New Zealand. 
I see a plank that is based on a set of assumptions. As I understand it from everybody I have heard and from reading the bill and listening to the first reading those assumptions are based on what they call human rights—or civil rights as some would say. I understand that this is already in existence. We do not need these things. I have asked some lawyers about it and they point out that the Human Rights Act or the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act supports the view that the State has not been discriminating against homosexuals and lesbians up to this point. So what is the issue? 
Here we have this plank that is built on a myth on pretence. I am not convinced that this plank is very very stable for all of us to walk on. In fact it takes a lot of faith to believe in this myth and more faith than some of the Christians who have been quoted or misquoted to have faith in it. But the big issue as I see it is that this plank leads to nowhere. Even if the civil rights issues or human rights issues were issues where does the plank go? The previous speaker has rightly pointed out that the companion bill is really where it should lead to. Because we do not see what that is cannot see what it is and in fact it has been withheld from us we are going to walk the plank to nowhere. That plank leads us into Davy Jones’ Locker and we will drown in all sorts of things that as yet we know not of. In fact there are a few things that one or two people have been saying to me—such as that the good ship New Zealand is losing its way. They ask whether this bill will lead to polygamy; whether a person could marry more than one person. We do not know because we do not have this companion bill before us. “Is it possible to marry one’s son and daughter?” they ask. 
We do not know so what are we going to agree to or not agree to tonight? I think we should be of a mind to disagree on what we cannot see because these are promises that are leading to nowhere. 
Someone asked earlier why the House is under urgency. I think the answer is simple: it is to allow only a little time to get this thing through because the pirates would lose their cause if we had more time to debate consider and put this solidly before ourselves in this Chamber and before the people of New Zealand.
Carter John: Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill — Procedure Referral to Health Committee In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled  Speaker Recalled In Committee Procedure 
Carter John: 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:9976] 
JOHN CARTER (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I brought the Chairperson’s attention to his comment that the amendments being private was one reason why they were ruled out. Like Mr Dunne I cannot remember the exact wording as I do not have the book in front of me but you have Mr Speaker. I made what I thought was the very valid point that these places are by their very nature public places. Hotels call themselves public bars and people gather there to celebrate associate partake or do whatever it is that they might wish to do in those public places. It is not right to say that they are private. They might be privately owned but they certainly are not private in the sense that they are private homes or that the public are not allowed to be involved in them. By their very nature that is their purpose and that is the reason why we are dealing with public issues. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thank honourable members for the very interesting points that have been raised. There are four types of bills as prescribed by Standing Order 249. There is a distinction between members’ bills which deal with matters of public policy and private bills which are for the benefit of a person or a body of persons. These rules about the contents of bills are reflected in Speakers’ rulings 79/4 and 79/5 and prevent matters that should be in private bills from being introduced into public bills by way of amendment. Amendments to exempt individual establishments or establishments that are part of a particular association from the general law are clearly matters for the particular interest or benefit of a person or body of persons. They should therefore be promoted in a private bill by that person or body of persons—see Standing Order 249(1)(d). They cannot be introduced into a member’s bill or a Government bill by way of amendment. Katherine Rich’s amendments for example all relate to particular establishments owned leased or operated by someone. If the owner leaseholder or operator wishes exemption from the general law it is for him or her to promote private legislation. 
Referring to the argument raised by the Hon Peter Dunne to which I listened with a lot of interest a generic amendment relating to cigar bars is in quite a different position. Even though it has only limited application because there are few such bars it is drafted generally and is permissible. I declare the House in Committee once again for consideration of this matter.
Eckhoff Gerrard: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4) — In Committee 
Eckhoff Gerrard: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4) — In Committee 
[Volume:619;Page:14555] 
GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT) 
: 
 I would like to pick up on the comment of the Minister who I am very pleased to say took a call in answer to Mr Carter’s question. He of course thanked the Primary Production Committee and the House for what I think he took as a vote of confidence. I tell the Minister that he should take absolutely no comfort at all from the fact that the vote in the Chamber was overwhelming with just the Green Party opposing the progress of the bill. Certainly the members from the ACT party and I assume from National are telling this Government that the overriding factor is the sustainability of the scampi fishery. If it was not for that particular facet I am sure that my party would be voting against the early passage of this bill because a huge number of issues still surround the scampi fishery. Legal proceedings are still swirling around this Government around the Ministry of Fisheries and around the fishers involved in the industry—and so they should. There has been—and I continue to repeat this—a huge amount of unfairness and inappropriate behaviour by the ministry on this particular issue. 
I have a question that maybe the Minister or some members of this Committee may be able to help me with. It is this: when the royal assent is given and this bill becomes law what impact will that have on the ability of the scampi litigants if that is the right word to actually forward their cases? It seems to me that the ministry may take the attitude in dealing with fishers on this issue that once the legislation becomes an Act it is no longer a matter for debate and the ministry could well take a more intransigent attitude than it is perhaps taking at the moment towards those with a genuine grievance. So as I said earlier I think this bill is a matter that the Government can take no comfort from in terms of the extent of the vote in favour of it. 
Is 1 October the appropriate commencement date? Well any date I guess could be described as appropriate but as far as the ACT party is concerned the sooner the quota management system comes into being for all fish and fish stocks that are under threat the better it will be. Quite clearly that is the way to progress the industry. The world recognises that New Zealand is leading the charge on that particular issue. The sustainability of any feral fishery is under threat throughout the world and the quota management system is certainly the way to further that particular issue. 
It is not easy quite frankly for me to stand here and vote with the Government on this issue. But we do so not out of seeking to support the Government but out of seeking to support the sustainability of the fishery.
Gallagher Martin: Government Communications Security Bureau Bill — In Committee 
Gallagher Martin: Government Communications Security Bureau Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:607;Page:4397] 
MARTIN GALLAGHER (NZ Labour—Hamilton West) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Shirley Ken: Motions — Mr Bright Williams 
Shirley Ken: Motions — Mr Bright Williams 
[Volume:606;Page:3473] 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 I move  
That this House records its sadness at the passing of Mr Bright Williams the last survivor of 100444 New Zealanders who left this country to serve in the First World War and acknowledges the sacrifices that they made 
. 
Motion agreed to.
Simich Clem: Courts and Criminal Matters Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Simich Clem: Courts and Criminal Matters Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:626;Page:21733] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Leave has been sought for that course to be followed. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. The question is that Part 8 stand part and we have a number of amendments. The first one is in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall. It is an amendment to omit subclause (2) from new clause 30AA set out on Supplementary Order Paper 370. That amendment is now out of order. 
The question was put that the following amendments in the name of the Hon Rick Barker to proposed new clauses 25C and 33E set out on Supplementary Order Paper 370 in his name be agreed to: 
to omit from new section 71(1B) of the Summary Proceedings Act 1957 in proposed new clause 25C the expression “21(1)(b)” and substitute the expression “21(3) or (3D)”; and 
to insert in new section 255A(1)(b) of the Fisheries Act 1996 in proposed new clause 33E after the words “filed or” the words “a reminder notice is”. 
Amendments to the amendments agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments as amended set out on Supplementary Order Paper 370 in the name of the Hon Rick Barker to Part 8 be agreed to. 
Amendments as amended agreed to and Part 8 as amended agreed to.
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:625;Page:19740] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (NZ First—Tauranga) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I seek leave to table a document and I need to explain what I am requesting by this. I have spoken to the Clerk of the House. Disclosure of this document will be limited to MPs and MPs alone; otherwise it would offend a court ruling— 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Why are you tabling it? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: I thought the 119 other members of this Parliament might be interested in a grave injustice. That is why I am tabling it. I can see why it would not concern that member. I seek leave— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the member please sit down. There was an interjection while the member was speaking on his point of order. Members know that there are to be no interjections when there is a point of order. Would the member who interjected please leave the Chamber. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Before leaving I seek the leave of the House to table documents showing fraudulent enrolments at Te Wananga o Aotearoa. 
Documents by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member can now leave. 
Hon Ken Shirley withdrew from the Chamber. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Before I was so rudely interrupted I was pointing out that I had spoken to the Clerk who had advised me that this document would have limited distribution to members of Parliament only. I therefore seek to table the Te Rata station suspension bridge report of G W Butcher. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document under those conditions. Any objection? Yes there is objection. The document will not be tabled.
Stewart Barbara: Copyright (Parallel Importation of Films and Onus of Proof) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Stewart Barbara: Copyright (Parallel Importation of Films and Onus of Proof) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:607;Page:4654] 
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First will be supporting this bill’s referral to the Commerce Committee. We believe that this is a way of encouraging New Zealanders who may be affected to take an active interest in this matter and to have some input. The bottom line is that we must ensure that all New Zealand audiences continue to have access to a wide range of films videos and DVDs. This is the type of environment that we must have here in New Zealand. We do not want to see that we are facing a loss of entertainment choices. We believe that we should continue to benefit from a wide availability of major film titles. We believe too that the people of New Zealand must have a say in this legislation. New Zealand First will support this bill going to the select committee.
Robertson H V Ross: Future Directions (Working for Families) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
Robertson H V Ross: Future Directions (Working for Families) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:13494] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Before we proceed I have received a certificate under Standing Order 313 relating to amendments proposed to be moved in the Committee of the whole House. Under Standing Order 313 the Government does not concur with the following amendments being proposed: amendments moved by the honourable member Peter Brown to clause 4(1) (2) (3) (4) and (5); and amendments moved by the honourable member Sue Bradford to clauses 12 and 23 and schedule 3. I should mention just in case members are wondering that these are veto certificates that have vetoed the amendments because of the financial implications that they have.
Vote: Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8697] 
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 82 
Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to.
Tamihere John: Land Transport Management Bill — In Committee 
Tamihere John: Land Transport Management Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:613;Page:9744] 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE (Minister of Youth Affairs) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Vote: Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Bill — In Committee Procedure Third Reading 
Vote: Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Bill — In Committee Procedure Third Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:20974] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 55 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 13 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (1) all the words after the words “by a specified claim”.
Vote: Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17919] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9. 
Amendment agreed to.
Smith Nick: Personal Explanations — Trevor Mallard—Statement Made About Hon Dr Nick Smith 
Smith Nick: Personal Explanations — Trevor Mallard—Statement Made About Hon Dr Nick Smith 
[Volume:625;Page:20525] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I seek the leave of the House under Standing Order 343 to make a personal explanation in respect of the statement made by Mr Trevor Mallard on nationwide TV—the  
Close Up 
 programme—that I was personally responsible for the $20 million bail-out in respect of Te Wananga o Aotearoa. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to make a personal statement. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Parker David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Parker David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:613;Page:9706] 
3.  
DAVID PARKER (Labour—Otago) 
 to the  
Minister of Agriculture 
: What progress has the Government made in promoting organic agriculture and enabling consumer choice? 
Hon JIM SUTTON (Minister of Agriculture) 
: 
 Last night the New Zealand Organic Standard 8410 was launched. This is significant for the industry because it gives greater assurances to consumers that the products they buy really have been grown organically. Currently anyone can label their produce as organic in order to command higher prices. However that product may have been grown without any adherence to organic principles whatsoever. 
David Parker 
: What other initiatives has the Government carried through for the organic sector? 
Hon JIM SUTTON 
: Also launched last night was the organic sector strategy which sets goals for the industry over the next 10 years. That strategy the standard and the small-scale organic certification scheme which has now grown into Organic Farm New Zealand are three Government-funded initiatives aimed at creating the necessary framework to enable the sector to grow and prosper and are now in place. The extent to which they do grow and prosper of course will depend upon the demands of consumers around the world and the ability of the sector to meet those demands. 
Hon David Carter 
: What progress has his Government made in promoting any agricultural export market particularly in view of the free-trade agreement between Australia and the United States which could be finalised before Christmas? 
Hon JIM SUTTON 
: The Government of course has made tremendous progress in promoting our agricultural exports. The sector is very pleased with those results. 
Gerrard Eckhoff 
: In terms of promotion of organic agriculture what does he believe the appropriate balance should be between organic and traditional agriculture in New Zealand and what is the rationale in promoting one form of agriculture over another? 
Hon JIM SUTTON 
: Many countries have thriving agricultural sectors—organic conventional and genetically modified—coexisting. There are niche markets that are profitable for organic produce. This Government favours our exports being targeted at profitable niche markets in whatever form. 
Ian Ewen-Street 
: How does the Minister reconcile his support for organics with the Government’s simultaneous lifting of the GE moratorium given that the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry has failed to establish an effective coexistence regime and that research commissioned by the UK Government shows that coexistence is a physical impossibility? 
Hon JIM SUTTON 
: Many countries have coexisting thriving organic conventional and GE agricultural sectors. Those include the European Union and our closest neighbour Australia. In fact I am told that there have been something like 1775 GE releases mainly for field trials in Europe since 1991. That is the same sort of thing the Environmental Risk Management Authority is considering for onions in New Zealand right now.
Tizard Judith: Standing Orders—Sessional 
Tizard Judith: Standing Orders—Sessional 
[Volume:614;Page:10751] 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Minister of Consumer Affairs) 
 on behalf of the 
 Leader of the House 
: I seek leave for the Standing Orders Committee to be re-established with the terms of reference set out in the Standing Orders as amended with effect on 10 February 2004 and for the committee to continue in existence for the duration of the Parliament unless the House provides otherwise. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There appears to be none.
Tisch Lindsay: General Debates 
Tisch Lindsay: General Debates 
[Volume:618;Page:14403] 
LINDSAY TISCH (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That was the longest 5 minutes I have heard for some time. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I accept that the member’s speech did go slightly over time.
Cunliffe David: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Cunliffe David: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 19 June 2003. Volume:609;Page:6445. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of State) 
: 
 I am pleased to rise to support this bill. It is an unfortunate fact of life that people get badly hurt in motor vehicle accidents. The costs of remedying those injuries and caring for those people over a long time are high and in line with the escalating costs of health care those costs are rising faster than inflation. That leaves the Crown with a difficult issue. We have a legal requirement to collect enough levy to fully fund the motor vehicle account. The question then is not whether we pay for it but how we pay for it. Our contention is that this bill is the fairest way. It is fairest because those of lowest risk will pay the least and because prorating the cost against petrol which is broadly correlated with risk on the road avoids an increasing lump-sum payment through vehicle licensing. We note that the alternative which is higher lump-sum payments would be regressive in the sense that those least able to afford sharp one-off costs would still face them. Very briefly in principle this bill is necessary it is fair and it is timely.
Vote: Imports and Exports (Restrictions) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Imports and Exports (Restrictions) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6968] 
A party vote was called for on the question That thea 
mendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 47 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7. 
Noes 68 
Labour 52; Green Party 8; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith to clause 9 be agreed to: 
to amend new section 3A(1) by inserting after the words “international obligation” the words “specified in section 2(1)”.
Pettis Jill: Supreme Court Bill — In Committee 
Pettis Jill: Supreme Court Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:9057] 
JILL PETTIS (Junior Whip—NZ Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Ewen-Street Ian: Hop Industry Restructuring Bill — Second Reading Procedure Third Reading 
Ewen-Street Ian: Hop Industry Restructuring Bill — Second Reading Procedure Third Reading 
[Volume:607;Page:4842] 
IAN EWEN-STREET (Green) 
: 
 I would like to take a very short call in this debate. I will start by congratulating the hop industry and sharing my sympathy with it for the time it has spent waiting so patiently for this day to arrive. I also take issue again with my colleague the “member for Upper Coal Creek” Mr Eckhoff who talked about genetically engineered hops. 
Gerrard Eckhoff 
: Genetically modified hops. 
IAN EWEN-STREET 
: There are no genetically engineered hops in New Zealand. There is a difference between genetic engineering and selective breeding and hybridisation. They are different concepts. It is quite simple. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member may interject if he wants to but he should move out of that quarter. 
IAN EWEN-STREET 
: In terms of the passage of this bill through the select committee as other members have said we were unanimous—finally. However I did raise with my colleagues the question of ownership of the shares of that cooperative company. In the end we decided that we would not change the legislation to impose a limit of shareholdings on individual members or the cooperative but it would be of benefit to the hop industry as a whole to bear in mind the example of what happened to ENZA formerly the Apple and Pear Marketing Board. When that was privatised and corporatised— 
Hon David Carter 
: Are you mounting a takeover? 
IAN EWEN-STREET 
: There was a takeover. There was a maximum holding of 19 percent and people assumed that any company that had a maximum holding of 19 percent would not be able to take control of what was a monopolistic export body. However history has shown that two companies got together 38 percent of the votes and took a controlling interest in ENZA to the very great disadvantage of the members. 
I suggest to members of the hop industry that in the immediate future they set their own regulations to limit the number of shares that anyone or any group of owners can have. The cooperative structure obviously is very powerful but if one allows an organisation a corporate or any individual to take control of the industry it will be to the disadvantage of everyone else. 
I commend this bill to the House and look forward to the third reading in the near future.
Pettis Jill: Biosecurity Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Pettis Jill: Biosecurity Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:7073] 
JILL PETTIS (NZ Labour—Whanganui) 
: 
 I am pleased to support this bill. It is a good bill. Let us complete its third reading as quickly as possible.
Pettis Jill: Television New Zealand Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Pettis Jill: Television New Zealand Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:606;Page:3736] 
JILL PETTIS (Junior Whip—NZ Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No not yet.
Mark Ron: Corrections Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
Mark Ron: Corrections Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:13041] 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: It had better be a new one because I have made a ruling. Under Speaker’s ruling 20/3 the member is entitled to raise a point of order. That is part of the way in which the Committee operates. However once I have made a decision that is it and if the member persists then I refer him to Standing Order 85/1 and it will be his first yellow card. 
RON MARK 
: I accept all of that Mr Chairman but the point of order I would raise is that the Hon Richard Prebble has sought the leave of the Committee through you in the submission he made. My understanding of the Standing Orders is that it is requisite on you to put the question as to that leave. I trust I am not out of order. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Did the Hon Richard Prebble seek leave?
Vote: Land Transport Management Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Vote: Land Transport Management Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:613;Page:9676] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 46 
New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Amendments agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Roger Sowry to clause 3 be agreed to: 
to omit subclause (1) and substitute the following subclause: 
(1)The purpose of this Act is to contribute to the aim of achieving an integrated safe responsive and economically efficient land transport system.
Vote: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Vote: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:17050] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 10 
Green Party 9; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 109 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Metiria Turei to clause 21 be agreed to: 
to insert in subclause (2) after the words “or subclause (1A)”; the words “or subclause (1B)”.
Mark Ron: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Mark Ron: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:608;Page:5690] 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I raise it pertaining to Standing Order 375(2) in respect of some parts of my question that have come from the reply to a written question to the Minister. I seek your indulgence in looking particularly at the time that question was lodged and the time the reply was due back. The answer to that question was due back to me on 13 May this year at 1200 hours. My office received it on 13 May at 1547 hours which was clearly after question time had got under way. It concerns me that information such as that which is so critical to the questions I have been asking should have been delayed. It was in the Minister’s hands until after question time had started thus preventing me from— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No. The member has not read the Standing Order correctly. The reply is due back on a particular day not at a particular time. It was given on that day as the member himself has said. Please ask the question. 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No. Please ask the question. 
RON MARK 
: Point of order— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No. I have ruled on the point of order. Oh another point of order? 
RON MARK 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Then can you as Speaker take steps to speak with the Clerk’s Office about the offending words—which clearly have misled me—that state: “Due Date: 13.05.2003 at 1200 hours” because I took them to be factual. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There is nothing in the Standing Orders about that as far as I am concerned. I have just consulted the Clerk. If those words are there that is a mistake made at another level. Certainly I know the rule that when a question is due on the 13th the answer has to be submitted on the 13th. As the member himself has said it was.
Shirley Ken: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
Shirley Ken: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
[Volume:607;Page:4311] 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. There is a longstanding tradition that select committees do not sit during urgency. One of the dangers we have and I have written to you about this matter and I think it needs to go to the Standing Orders Committee is that the Government can subvert the clear intentions of the Standing Orders through this referral motion. The motion just put by the Minister would authorise the Local Government and Environment Committee to meet during urgency. That does pose an intolerable pressure for smaller parties. I am sure that United Future perhaps the Greens and others would share that concern. We in the ACT party know that it is an intolerable situation to have select committees meeting during urgency.
Vote: Land Transport (Unauthorised Street and Drag Racing) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Vote: Land Transport (Unauthorised Street and Drag Racing) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:607;Page:4615] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Land Transport (Unauthorised Street and Drag Racing) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 97 
Noes 17 
Bill read a third time. 
Labour 52; New Zealand National 24; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8. 
ACT New Zealand 8; Green Party 9.
Dalziel Lianne: Protected Objects Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Dalziel Lianne: Protected Objects Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:624;Page:19620] 
LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 I want to take a brief call at the first reading of the Protected Objects Amendment Bill because I believe that this bill is of vital importance to the many hundreds if not thousands of New Zealanders who play a role in protecting New Zealand’s cultural heritage. I know of people—whom the Minister has had the grace to come and visit—in my own electorate who spend all their spare time ensuring that our cultural heritage is preserved so that our children and our children’s children can see that heritage in a real form. 
This bill will strengthen the Antiquities Act as the Minister has said. Although that Act now controls the export of cultural heritage through the system we have already heard about it does not really provide very well for the recovery of objects that have been illegally exported. As the previous speaker mentioned there are examples of many aspects of New Zealand’s cultural heritage being taken from our shores and of our being unable to recover them for future generations. 
This legislation will make a real difference and I think it is a tribute to all those hundreds of New Zealanders who are playing a role in preserving our cultural heritage for the future. They can feel very proud of what they do for our country and very proud of a Minister who really has made unstinting efforts on behalf of those people to ensure that the legislative framework can assist them in the work they do. This bill represents a major advance in protecting our cultural heritage. I congratulate the Minister and I commend the bill to the House.
Vote: Maori Purposes Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Vote: Maori Purposes Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:607;Page:4831] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 25 
Noes 92 
Amendment not agreed to. 
ACT New Zealand 8; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 76 in the name of the Hon Parekura Horomia to clause 5 and the following amendment to clause 5AC be agreed to: 
to amend new clause 5AC by omitting from subclause (2)(c) the words “in the opinion of the Chairperson”. 
Amendments agreed to.
Cosgrove Clayton: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Cosgrove Clayton: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:608;Page:5297] 
2.  
CLAYTON COSGROVE (NZ Labour—Waimakariri) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Has he received any recent reports on New Zealand’s fiscal and monetary policy management? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Yes. The latest International Monetary Fund report on New Zealand described the Government’s macroeconomic policies as sound and our decision to defer any new big-spending initiatives until next year’s Budget as prudent. 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: Has the Minister received any reports on the changes this Government has made to monetary policy? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Yes. The changes were commended by the International Monetary Fund and by the Australian-based investment bank TD Securities whose chief economist said that the introduction of a more pragmatic regime and the appointment of a new Governor had created monumental confidence amongst financial markets that the Reserve Bank was a highly credible well-managed bank. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Is it not true that the economy’s recent buoyancy owes a great deal to monetary policy in late 2001 and early 2002 or are the lags in the effectiveness of monetary policy suddenly very much shorter than previously? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No and I do not think we should get into questions about old lags in this context. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No. The Minister said “No” which was a complete answer to a question. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. How on earth can one answer a question like that with a “No”? How can that be considered to be addressing the question? And is it acceptable for the second Minister in a day to abuse Standing Order 365 with some sort of added epithet at the end that adds nothing to the question or to the dignity of Parliament? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The comment at the end will be withdrawn please. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I withdraw. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: As to the first part of the question I say that Ministers can answer questions “Yes” or “No” or in any way that they like. I am not to judge that. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Is it the Minister’s intention given his reported comment that the fiscal surplus this year could reach $4 billion to reduce the overall level of the tax burden on individuals and companies in the upcoming Budget; if not why not? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: As I indicated on Saturday it is likely that the figure for the operating balance excluding revaluations and accounting changes will be somewhere about the $4 billion mark. That is not a cash surplus; it does not represent $4 billion in the back of my pocket. I also indicated that due largely to changing discount rates the final operating balance will be only about a third of that figure.
Vote: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Vote: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:17083] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 19 
Green Party 9; United Future 8; Maori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 101 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Metiria Turei to proposed new clause 43B set out on Supplementary Order Paper 302 in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen be agreed to: 
to insert in paragraph (a) of proposed new subclause (1) after the word “order” the words “or an order under section 37(i)(c)”.
Hartley Ann: Maori Television Service (Te Aratuku Whakaata Irirangi Maori) Bill — Third Reading 
Hartley Ann: Maori Television Service (Te Aratuku Whakaata Irirangi Maori) Bill — Third Reading 
[Volume:608;Page:5290] 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. We have dealt with the matter. I know exactly what he is saying. Mr Prebble had called. I looked around. No member was calling. I cannot tell members to call. I will now put the vote on the—
Fairbrother Russell: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Approvals and Enforcement) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Fairbrother Russell: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Approvals and Enforcement) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:623;Page:18784] 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour—Napier) 
: 
 Having listened to the bombastic vanity of the last speaker I am convinced of just one thing. This bill is a matter of science and should be referred to the Education and Science Committee for consideration.
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
Brownlee Gerry: Business Statement 
[Volume:606;Page:3849] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (NZ National—Ilam) 
: 
 I thank the Leader of the House for that indication of what we will be doing next week. I just ask him how soon he thinks the Responsible Gambling Bill which is at No. 25 on the Order Paper might come before the House noting that public interest in that bill is growing. I also ask him given that the Order Paper is now so very long whether he expects that the next session of the Parliament will have a number of urgent sessions.
Duncan Helen: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Duncan Helen: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:606;Page:3691] 
6.  
HELEN DUNCAN (NZ Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What steps have been put in place to enhance students’ learning? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 Numerous steps have been put in place. Because the Government is intent on improving the literacy and numeracy skills of school students we started the roll-out of Assessment Tools for Teaching and Learning in Primary Schools programme last week. Those are world-leading tools which for the first time enable teachers to assess and accurately diagnose where students need more work so that they will have the basics rights before going to secondary school. 
Helen Duncan 
: What are the benefits for teachers parents caregivers and indeed the students themselves? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: There has been extremely positive feedback from the teachers who have trialled the system over the past 2 years. They have reported that the analysis of results can be obtained very quickly and that the assessments are much more time-saving than manual methods of assessment. Parents and caregivers are also reporting that they get a much more accurate picture of how their child is doing early on rather than having the problems appear in the secondary school years. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Why did the Minister in his very first decision as Minister of Education dump the assessment of all 9 and 11-year-olds in National’s literacy and numeracy initiative only to now resurrect the initiative in a half-baked form 3 years later? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The “half-baked” arrangement I “dumped” was something that would give one-off pencil and paper tests to kids with no diagnostic basis at all. What was left by the National Party would be very good at giving a national ranking but no good at all at showing parents where their kids’ strengths and weaknesses were. I changed that. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: How does a draconian escalation of secondary qualification entry fees which have risen by 500 percent in some cases in the year 2002-03—with the fees for Sixth Form Certificate in four subjects for example increasing from $25 to $150—enhance learning?  
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: That is a separate issue and to be frank my answer to the member would be “not at all”. 
Bernie Ogilvy 
: Does the Minister agree that student learning could be enhanced by an increased emphasis on character education; if so what measures are currently in place that go beyond the good work being done in the area of literacy and numeracy skills to teach children to become better citizens? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Two major programmes have been rolled out in schools which have been funded partially by the Ministry of Education on a contract basis. Although I would not say it is quite moral education it is certainly values-based education.