edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Connell Brian: Care of Children Bill — Instruction to Committee Procedure In Committee 
Connell Brian: Care of Children Bill — Instruction to Committee Procedure In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:16656] 
BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) 
: 
 When I first read the draft of this legislation I was prepared to give the Government the benefit of the doubt because I think some components of it are quite noteworthy. But all faith I had that members of the Government might have the interests of children at heart evaporated the moment I walked into the Chamber and saw who the Minister in the chair was. He is simply the conduit—the puppet—for a whole bunch of strong barren women who make up the leadership of the Labour Party and who want to re-engineer New Zealand families in their own image. I can tell those members that the public of New Zealand does not want to have one little bit of their legislation. 
Rick Barker stood up in this Chamber and said he cared about children. If he does—and I challenge the member on this—then he will find that he has no alternative but to vote for Judith Collins’ amendment. I suggest that he read it. What Judith Collins is suggesting is that a young girl who finds herself in a position where she may want an abortion has the right to either go and tell her parents or have a medical practitioner go on her behalf to a judge and make sure that her position is clearly articulated. Now it seems to me that that is fair and reasonable. The member opposite Mr Barker is looking at me very blankly which is what he normally does. This time I think it is because he has not read the amendment. This legislation suggests that parents and fathers do not have rights. They are playing second fiddle to the politically correct aspirations of the Government. I say that it is wrong. 
Rick Barker banged on about young women who are under 16 having an abortion without even suggesting that they should talk to their mother or father in their hour of crisis. For goodness’ sake! He calls them young women. Thirteen or 14-year-old girls are simply that—girls. They are confused and what they need is for their mum to put her arm around them and say “Darling I understand. You can talk to me about this issue and I will help you through it.” How traumatic must it be for a child to find herself in that circumstance? The heartless Labour Government would have us believe that in the best interests of children we should cut them loose and leave them to their own devices to swim or drown. How heartless and ignorant is that? Only powerful women in the Labour Party who are childless could think that is a good idea. The fact that those women are surrounded by a whole bunch of weak namby-pamby men just makes it worse. David Parker—the “Parker Pimpernel”—is making a guest appearance in the Chamber tonight. He is interjecting. That member has by my reckoning 38 flights left to Wellington.
Vote: Gambling Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Vote: Gambling Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8513] 
A party vote was called for on the question T 
hat the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 46 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6. 
Noes 71 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 110 in the name of Lindsay Tisch to clause 298(3) be agreed to.
Carter Chris: Biosecurity Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Carter Chris: Biosecurity Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:7035] 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Conservation) 
: I move  
That the Biosecurity Amendment Bill be now read a second time 
. The Biosecurity Amendment Bill consists of two parts in 26 clauses. The first part makes 23 small but important changes to the Biosecurity Act. The second part repeals five redundant sections and part of one other section of the Forests Act. These redundant sections deal with issues of forest border control and pest management that are now dealt with under the Biosecurity Act. The amendments to the Biosecurity Act could be categorised as technical in nature and consequently the main policies of the Act are not changed by the bill. 
The bill as introduced adds a new section that imposes a duty on all people to inform a chief technical officer of the presence of organisms not normally seen in New Zealand. The Primary Production Committee has recognised the need for three changes to the clause dealing with the duty to inform. Firstly the committee has amended clause 6 so that a person’s duty to inform is to inform the ministry rather than the chief technical officer. The second change the committee recommended was to confirm that the duty to inform does not apply to organisms contained or released according to statutory approvals under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act. The third change is that the reporting duty applies to micro-organisms as well as to those seen with the naked eye. The committee also recommends that the Government provide information about unwanted organisms to assist those who have a duty to report should the bill be enacted. 
The bill as introduced provided a power to reduce the notice period to a minimum of 24 hours in cases where the 2-hour notice period would seriously damage the chance of containing or eradicating an undesirable organism. In such cases notices may be given by way of radio or television announcement or other means appropriate to the circumstances. 
I wish to thank the Primary Production Committee for its work in considering the Biosecurity Amendment Bill. The amendments it has proposed will improve the bill’s provisions. The committee’s recommendations to the Government and to the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry are accepted and are being implemented.
Vote: Motor Vehicle Sales Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Vote: Motor Vehicle Sales Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:607;Page:4751] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 69 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Motion agreed to.
Vote: Government Communications Security Bureau Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Government Communications Security Bureau Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:607;Page:4403] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 61 in the name of Keith Locke to insert new clause 30A in Part 4 be agreed to. 
Ayes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Noes 108 
Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to.
Vote: Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:12586] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 as amended be agreed to.  
Ayes 63 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Part 2 as amended agreed to.
Mackey Moana: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Mackey Moana: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:615;Page:11424] 
3.  
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
 to the  
Associate Minister for Industry and Regional Development 
: What benefits are there for New Zealand industry in the success of  
The Lord of the Rings 
 trilogy of films? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Associate Minister for Industry and Regional Development) 
: 
 Plenty. The global success of these movies has already boosted tourism. It has put New Zealand on Hollywood’s map of great places to make movies it has strengthened our domestic film industry by creating infrastructure and jobs and it has helped the world understand that New Zealand has a modern creative economy with world-class talent. 
Moana Mackey 
: What is the Government doing to take advantage of opportunities for economic development offered by the success of  
The Lord of the Rings 
? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Again plenty. The growth and innovation framework identified the screen production industry as a key growth sector and the Government has responded to the recommendations of the screen production task force with initiatives such as a $10 million budget boost for the Film Commission funding for the establishment of the Screen Council and the creation of the Large Budget Screen Production Grant scheme which increases New Zealand’s attractiveness as a location for major productions.
Shirley Ken: Christchurch City Council (Robert McDougall Gallery) Land Vesting Bill — Procedure Second Reading 
Shirley Ken: Christchurch City Council (Robert McDougall Gallery) Land Vesting Bill — Procedure Second Reading 
[Volume:611;Page:8795] 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 I seek a point of clarification Mr Speaker. The Hon Peter Dunne raised a very interesting point and I did not hear you respond or rule on that aspect. The Deputy Leader of the House has moved on to the next stage of it. I would certainly like a clarification of the point because I find it a bit of an outrage that the Deputy Leader of the House particularly should come down here and wave around the minutes of a committee that has not yet approved those minutes. That is my understanding of the situation and I think it is very inappropriate behaviour. I think we need a ruling on that from you as Speaker. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I did not give you a ruling before because Mr Burton was speaking to the same point of order. I was about to give a ruling when you chose to speak on the same point of order. I allowed you to speak and that is fair enough. The ruling is that Mr Burton was fully entitled to seek the leave of the House to table the minutes which he did and there was no objection. In fact the minutes are a draft only so no approvals were needed. The House was fully entitled to do what it did.
Catchpole Brent: Biosecurity Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Catchpole Brent: Biosecurity Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:7064] 
BRENT CATCHPOLE (NZ First) 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. This is a very important bill and before you put the motion I would like you to consider giving one of our very few agrarian members of this Parliament Gerard Eckhoff another call. I am sure that he has plenty more to say about the bill and it is a very important bill. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member cannot ask that on behalf of another member.
Hughes Darren: Taxation (Annual Rates Maori Organisations Taxpayer Compliance and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — In Committee 
Hughes Darren: Taxation (Annual Rates Maori Organisations Taxpayer Compliance and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:607;Page:4248] 
DARREN HUGHES (NZ Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Pettis Jill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Pettis Jill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:609;Page:6468] 
2.  
JILL PETTIS (NZ Labour—Whanganui) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What steps is he taking to help spread literacy gains from the classroom into the home? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 This week more than 80000 students from 426 low-decile schools will get to choose a book they can take home and keep thanks to funding from this House. Government Book Week forms part of the highly successful Books in Homes programme that helps to get books into homes where reading material is otherwise scarce. 
Jill Pettis 
: What other initiatives has the Government in place to help to improve students’ literacy skills? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Spending on recent literacy initiatives is set to rise to $25 million over 4 years as a result of the $15 million injection in the May Budget. As a result literacy development officers will be supporting schools where necessary to deliver effective literacy programmes for their students. Other projects already in place include the Literacy Leadership Programme the highly successful Assessment Tools for Teaching and Learning and a lot more classroom and home resource materials than was previously available. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: What policy or programmes have been developed to mitigate the negative effects of what the Education and Science Committee report on literacy identified as the most seriously detrimental home-school relationship breakdown which was the issue of transiency on which this Government in 2001 pledged to commence policy work? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: We have certainly fulfilled that commitment.
Burton Mark: Christchurch City Council (Robert McDougall Gallery) Land Vesting Bill — Procedure Second Reading 
Burton Mark: Christchurch City Council (Robert McDougall Gallery) Land Vesting Bill — Procedure Second Reading 
[Volume:611;Page:8803] 
Hon MARK BURTON (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 I am happy to seek leave to rescind the first tabling. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Leave has been sought to rescind the first granting of leave. Is there any objection to that course of action? There is not. I thank all members for their contribution. The original tabling has been rescinded.
Hunt Jonathan: Voting — Correction 
Hunt Jonathan: Voting — Correction 
[Volume:613;Page:9857] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to change that vote and have it recorded accordingly. Is there any objection? There is not and it will be done.
Barker Rick: Forests Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee 
Barker Rick: Forests Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee 
[Volume:617;Page:12863] 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister for Courts) 
: 
 I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Forests Amendment Bill that it take the bill part by part.
Vote: Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17938] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 6 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 50 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; Maori Party 1. 
Schedule 6 as amended agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 315 in the name of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen to schedule 6A be agreed to.
Hunt Jonathan: Retirements — John Lindell O’Sullivan 
Hunt Jonathan: Retirements — John Lindell O’Sullivan 
[Volume:607;Page:4507] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Honourable members I am going to take the unusual step of making just a couple of comments myself. I will say a few things later on but John I want to say that I have been Speaker of this House now for 3½ years and having two incredibly good chief executive officers—yourself and Dave McGee—has made my job a lot easier. The comment made by John Carter and other people was right. You have to deal with 120 people all of whom have strong opinions keen ambition and sometimes a desire for a little bit more than they are entitled to. 
I have always admired your professionalism and judgment and I am going to miss having daily contact with you to discuss matters. Of course we would like you to carry on but you have made your decision to go at this time and I know you have discussed it with your wife Annette. I want to say congratulations on all the work you have done and wish you all the best for your retirement. 
Motion agreed to.
Vote: Corrections Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Corrections Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:12996] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to the amendment to clause 5 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 213 in the name of the Hon Paul Swain be agreed to:  
to omit proposed new paragraph (ab) of subclause (1).
Smith Lockwood: Points of Order — Question Time—Authenticity Question Time—Information in Minister’s Possession 
Smith Lockwood: Points of Order — Question Time—Authenticity Question Time—Information in Minister’s Possession 
[Volume:623;Page:18467] 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek your advice in relation to Speaker’s ruling 147/4 which is in your name. I wonder whether in your final weeks you would be prepared to consider an element of it. 
The Speaker’s ruling states: “The rules are not the same for questions and replies. Statements of fact in questions must be authenticated. There is no such rule for answers.” One can well understand why that ruling is there because the Speaker cannot possibly be responsible for the accuracy of answers. The dilemma though is that with the Speaker’s ruling standing the way it does it implies that the accuracy of questions may be more important than the accuracy of answers. I know that you would say there is a process under the Standing Orders for a privilege case to be taken should a member wilfully mislead this House. But that is a very serious process to embark upon. 
I believe that today an interesting example arose. In response to question No. 3 today the Minister involved kept referring to a survey claiming it vindicated as correct an answer he had given to this House. The questions in the survey had been tabled and were in the possession of the House. Members tried to point out to the House that what the Minister was saying was factually incorrect according to the survey he was quoting from. My concern is simply that this brings Parliament into disrepute when clearly the House has in its possession a document from which the Minister was quoting and the information the Minister continues to repeat—and I think it was repeated on two or three occasions—is absolutely inconsistent with the document in the possession of the House. I am sure you would look at it if a privilege case was taken and say that this is probably not of sufficient moment to warrant a privilege case. However in my view it does damage the integrity of this Parliament where Parliament has in its possession certain information that has been tabled and that information is clearly being totally misquoted by a Minister. Balancing that requirement for accuracy in questions with the greater responsibility for accuracy in answers would I believe be something worthy of your experienced consideration before you leave this Parliament.
Turner Judy: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — Second Reading 
Turner Judy: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:423;Page:18553] 
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of United Future to speak in support of the second reading of this bill. I note that the bill returns largely unchanged from the select committee. There has been a strengthening of the definition of Ngati Awa and there have been amendments to three ancillary claims plus some technical changes. The progress last night of the bill that sets out the governance provisions that will be used to manage the resources from this settlement was further evidence that Ngati Awa have given careful consideration to the process. 
The settlement includes a Crown apology cultural redress and financial and commercial redress as well. The impact of the settlement on the wider community is minimal. There is no private land involved and no national parks are included. Some small access issues are included—that is camping rights for certain parts of the year—and a 6-hectare pa site and there are some place-name changes but apart from that there is very little impact on the wider community. 
I am particularly pleased that the deed of settlement includes an account of the historical background regarding breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi that has been agreed to by both the Crown and Ngati Awa setting the record straight. This is important so that this redress is seen to be the response to genuine matters of law. I find it quite bizarre that a man who is normally renowned in this House for his expertise in law should make the statements that Mr Franks did in his previous speech. I want to read from a summary of the historical background to the claims by Ngati Awa: “Subsequently the Crown expeditionary force laid siege to the pa at Matata Whakatane and Te Teko. In October 1865 over 30 men were arrested for the killing of James Fulloon and related offences. Many were found guilty at trial by Courts-Martial and sentenced to death. They were re-tried before the Supreme Court in Auckland. All were found guilty of at least one charge and were sentenced to imprisonment or execution. Two men were subsequently executed for the murder of Fulloon and three others died while in prison.” I say to Mr Franks that it certainly sounds as though justice was meted out to the individuals involved but what he failed to mention was that Governor George Grey then deemed that the Bay of Plenty tribes had been in rebellion and confiscated 448000 acres of land from those people. So here we are today trying to make sense of individual property rights versus collective property rights. [ 
Interruption 
] That is exactly why. 
Ngati Awa have been seeking much of this redress since the year 1870 so United Future wishes to reiterate the commitment made last night during the second reading of Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Bill to continue our support of the timely passage of this bill through the House.
Hunt Jonathan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Hunt Jonathan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:612;Page:8964] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No. The member cannot seek leave on behalf of anybody else. The member can seek leave on behalf of himself to table a document not on behalf of anybody else.
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:17124] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 5 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 66 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Progressive 2. 
Noes 52 
New Zealand National 27; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8; Maori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Part 5 as amended agreed to.
Benson-Pope David: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — First Reading 
Benson-Pope David: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:619;Page:15182] 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister of Fisheries)  
on behalf of the Minister in charge of Treaty Negotiations 
: 
 I move  
That the Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill be referred to the Maori Affairs Committee 
 for consideration that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting except during oral questions during an evening on a day in which there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday in a week on which there has been a sitting of the House despite Standing Orders 191 and 194(1)(b) and (c) and that the committee report finally to the House on or before 1 December 2004.
Yates Dianne: Auckland War Memorial Museum Site Empowering Bill — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Yates Dianne: Auckland War Memorial Museum Site Empowering Bill — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:611;Page:8384] 
DIANNE YATES (NZ Labour—Hamilton East) 
: 
 As chair of the select committee I too want to thank all those who were involved in the preparation of the Auckland War Memorial Museum Site Empowering Bill particularly the Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage and the Associate Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage who ensured that the funding was adequate. It is the Labour Government that has to be praised for providing the funding to build this new facility. It will be a facility of which not only Aucklanders but also all New Zealanders will be truly proud. 
I wish to thank the House once again. It is not often that we have the House unanimously and constructively behind such a project and we look forward to when the building is finished so that we can all enjoy this facility. Once again thank you to all those involved and for the cooperation we had at the select committee.
Vote: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:621;Page:16354] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to 
Ayes 101 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 20; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 6; Progressive 2. 
Noes 15 
New Zealand National 4; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 2; Maori Party 1. 
Amendment to the amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 267 in the name of the Hon David Benson-Pope to clause 64 as amended be agreed to.
Franks Stephen: Ngati Tama Claims Settlement Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Franks Stephen: Ngati Tama Claims Settlement Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:613;Page:10180] 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I wonder if you could explain this. As I understand it it is pursuant to advice given to the Maori Affairs Committee on the way in which it should approach the review of Acts to ratify agreements. I am not sure of the status of that—whether that can bind this Committee in the way that it appears you may have been asked to rule. 
If your ruling is pursuant to advice given to that committee it does not seem to me that it has been made or given in a form that tells the Committee why a sovereign Parliament can then be constrained by an instrument that the Crown has signed unless this is in relation to or compared to a foreign treaty.  
I would say that the use of the foreign treaty analogy is incorrect. With foreign treaties we can assume that the Crown has no conflict of interests. The Crown will act only in the interests of New Zealand. It is proper then for the Committee to approach it as an all-or-nothing ratification. With an agreement with some of the citizens of New Zealand the Committee should not regard itself as bound by what the Crown does. It is for the Committee to decide whether this agreement is in the interests of New Zealanders. It is not appropriate that we simply adopt without explanation or debate a ruling given to a committee so long ago.
Carter Chris: Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Carter Chris: Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:618;Page:14029] 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 This is just a short contribution: I felt that Dail Jones asked in such a polite way that I should respond. There is good news for Mr Jones: State Highway 20 the Mount Roskill extension was approved last week at $150 million which is a good practical example of the Government delivering the goods. 
As for the North Shore busway we have heard so much about that project has already begun and the money for it was funded by this Government not the previous one. Hearing Dr Wayne Mapp’s crocodile tears about that project I have to ask who delivered the goods? The Labour-led Government did.
Ryall Tony: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Ryall Tony: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:623;Page:18880] 
11.  
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay Of Plenty) 
 to the  
Minister of Internal Affairs 
: Does the Department of Internal Affairs inform the New Zealand Police of pending prosecutions of any individual facing child pornography offences;if so do they do so in every case? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Minister of Internal Affairs) 
: 
 Yes they do so in every case with the exception of a small number of cases involving minor offending by children or young people. The police take an active part in the execution of search warrants and are informed as part of this process. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: How can vulnerable kids in schools be protected if the police are not made aware of these deviants particularly if they admit the offence a year before their name is published in a newspaper and the public finds out? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: The Department of Internal Affairs works with the police on these matters but I will ask the Secretary for Internal Affairs to see whether the department can get around all those problems that pop up from time to time. I want them working much closer and they are having a great deal of success. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Which of the Minister’s departments will take responsibility for fixing the situation that his office is aware of where a school bus driver admitted offences a year before his name was published in the newspaper and the police apparently were not informed of that admission or of the charges? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: At the time of the warrant being executed that person was unemployed and of course things may have happened since then. That is why I am getting the Secretary for Internal Affairs to talk with his staff and the police.
Brownlee Gerry: General Debates 
Brownlee Gerry: General Debates 
[Volume:616;Page:12449] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It had better be a point of order and not a debating point. His last point of order was a debating point and the member knows it. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I seek the leave of the House to request Mr Peters to table the seabed and foreshore legislation which clearly he has seen when no other member of the House has. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member knows he cannot do that and he should learn his Standing Orders.
Vote: Aquaculture Reform Bill — First Reading 
Vote: Aquaculture Reform Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:619;Page:15128] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 74 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 46 
New Zealand National 27; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8; Maori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Motion agreed to.
Hereora Dave: Courts and Criminal Matters Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Hereora Dave: Courts and Criminal Matters Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 19 June 2003. Volume:609;Page:6459. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
DAVE HEREORA (NZ Labour) 
: 
 I stand in support of this bill. The bill will also enable the court to increase payment arrangements when fines defaulters’ financial circumstances have improved significantly or when it is discovered that misleading information has been given. There will be more scope for collecting and paying out reparation owing to victims in a more timely manner.
Hughes Darren: Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Bill — In Committee Procedure Third Reading 
Hughes Darren: Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Bill — In Committee Procedure Third Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:21013] 
DARREN HUGHES (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Wilson Margaret: Speaker’s Statements — Observation of Silence—Loss of Lives in Terrorist Bombings 
Wilson Margaret: Speaker’s Statements — Observation of Silence—Loss of Lives in Terrorist Bombings 
[Volume:627;Page:21947] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I propose that the House observe a moment of silence as a mark of respect for those who have lost their lives in the recent terrorist bombings in London Sharm el-Sheikh and other places in the Middle East region over the past 3 weeks and in particular as a sign of sympathy to the parents family and friends of Shelley Mather from Auckland. 
The House observed a period of silence.
Yates Dianne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Yates Dianne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:608;Page:5690] 
7.  
DIANNE YATES (NZ Labour—Hamilton East) 
 to the  
Minister of Broadcasting 
: What recent reports has he received highlighting the achievements of putting New Zealand - made programmes on television? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Broadcasting) 
: 
 The New Zealand On Air local content survey which was released today shows the biggest increase in locally made television programmes in a decade. Last year local content accounted for 27.4 percent of the total television schedule up 3.8 percent on the previous year. All three channels increased their total local content. 
Dianne Yates 
: How did those figures reflect the level of the Government’s investment in New Zealand On Air? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: There was a 20 percent increase in the screening of first-run New Zealand drama and comedy both of which reflect our unique culture and identity. That increase in higher cost high-risk productions highlights the benefits of Government funding increases to New Zealand On Air in 2000 and last year. There was also a marked increase in children’s programming after nearly a decade of decline.
Field Taito Phillip: Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Field Taito Phillip: Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:6789] 
Hon TAITO PHILLIP FIELD (Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Carter David: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
Carter David: Maori Fisheries Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:15617] 
Hon DAVID CARTER (National) 
: 
 I thank the ACT member Stephen Franks for his interesting comments on Part 4. It seems to be an intriguing situation that such a significant restriction is placed on the trading of quota. My colleague Phil Heatley has pointed out to me is that this is a development that Maori petitioners came to the Fisheries and Sea-related Legislation Committee and asked for. It seems to me that that issue is worthy of the consideration of the Committee. It is the asset of Maori and no one else is claiming it is his or her asset. It is the asset of Maori New Zealanders. They came to the select committee and said they wanted to make sure that the asset exists in perpetuity for their people and therefore they wanted restrictions to be imposed on them that meant they could trade quota only within iwi. Stephen Franks raised some very good points about the commercial sense of that but at the end of the day if the asset is acknowledged as belonging to Maori and Maori collectively came to the select committee and ask for that then it is incumbent on this Parliament to allow that to happen. 
I would like the Minister to take a call to tell us what proportion of quota is tradable on the open market and what proportion of quota is being locked up via that request from Maori. 
Darren Hughes 
: This member has never sounded so good. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: I thank the member Darren Hughes for commenting on my voice. He too may one day be struck with the dreaded lurgy. 
Phil Heatley 
: When his voice breaks he will be like that. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: I think I will move on. My understanding of Part 4 is that quota that was originally part of the 1992 settlement which I spoke about in an earlier contribution is quota that will be locked and the restricted trading right will apply to that portion of quota. But as we all know since the 1992 settlement there has been considerable acquisition of quota by the Treaty of Waitangi Fisheries Commission. It is my understanding that that quota since it has been acquired on an open market can equally be traded on an open market. The question I would like the Minister to help the Committee with today is this: what proportion of the quota involved in this particular deal is restricted quota and what quota is open-market quota? It is a simply question so I hope the Minister can help us with regard to that. 
I conclude by repeating the points that I made earlier. At the end of the day Maori collectively came to the select committee and said that they wanted to have this restriction imposed on them. It is for admirable reasons I may add which will ensure that quota is available for generation after generation. I accept that but it seems that a very significant restriction is being placed on the value of the asset. I call on the Minister to answer those points for me.
Pillay Lynne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Pillay Lynne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:620;Page:15788] 
4.  
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Education (Tertiary Education) 
: What is the Government doing to address the skill needs of the New Zealand economy? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Associate Minister of Education (Tertiary Education)) 
: 
 At the end of last month the Prime Minister and I announced a package to help address New Zealand’s skills shortages and build skill levels in critical areas in the workforce. It involved $8.9 million to ensure 1000 additional Modern Apprenticeships by the end of June 2005 $5 million for 5000 more industry trainees next year and $2 million for post-placement support for former Work and Income clients who have completed Training Opportunities Programme study and entered work. 
Lynne Pillay 
: What response has he seen to this skills package? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The Industry Training Federation said that the skills package sustains economic growth and it welcomed the show of commitment. The New Zealand Council of Trade Unions also supported the package and the Business Council for Sustainable Development said it would help address the skills shortages faced by business. The Education Forum praised the Government and the Youth Skills New Zealand group commended the Government on the additional funding. But one man—Mr Bill English—tried to use some concerns about that very body to discredit the Modern Apprenticeships programme. His party of course is committed to repealing the Modern Apprenticeships legislation. 
Hon Bill English 
: Has the Minister seen the letter written by Youth Skills New Zealand to at least one New Zealand polytechnic expressing concern about the standard of trades education and quoting the construction industry as an example and does he take those concerns about quality in trades education seriously? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I take quality seriously at all times. But I tell the member that some argument going on between Youth Skills New Zealand which has praised this particular package and industry training organisations many of whom have decided to pull out of youth skills because they want to focus on other issues is their business. The quality of this programme and its enormous success are our business. I know that the member wants to repeal it but we will fight him on the hustings about that. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Will the Minister confirm that notwithstanding specific statutory requirements to the contrary less than 10 percent of Modern Apprenticeships are filled by females and what is he doing to rectify this gender imbalance in his Government’s meeting of skills needs? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I thank the member for his commitment to women getting into the Modern Apprenticeships scheme and I tell him that women have now reached the 500 mark in the programme which figure represents 31 percent growth since last year. We have put in place programmes that are beginning obviously to work.
Prebble Richard: Urgent Debates Declined — Government Transport Package Foreshore and Seabed Human Rights Review Tribunal Decision Points of Order 
Prebble Richard: Urgent Debates Declined — Government Transport Package Foreshore and Seabed Human Rights Review Tribunal Decision Points of Order 
[Volume:614;Page:10723] 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I want to make sure that you are prepared to give the House an assurance that you know that the Cabinet has not made a decision about this. This is something that strikes me as being an extraordinary assertion for you to make.
Prebble Richard: Points of Order — Rodney Hide—Alleged Comment 
Prebble Richard: Points of Order — Rodney Hide—Alleged Comment 
[Volume:615;Page:10999] 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I raise it on behalf of Mr Hide. I think the Prime Minister has done the right thing but it would be quite a good thing if Mr Benson-Pope were to rise and say that. We are now in the absurd situation that the whole House knows that the remark was not said but the one person who has gone around the country telling the media that that is how we in the New Zealand Parliament behave is not prepared to get up be a man and say: “I accept he did not say it and I apologise.”
Heatley Phil: Wool Industry Restructuring Bill — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Heatley Phil: Wool Industry Restructuring Bill — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:7123] 
PHIL HEATLEY (NZ National—Whangarei) 
: 
 I rise today as the National Party spokesperson on this bill to support the Government’s Supplementary Order Paper which corrects the misrepresentation on the calculation formula. As a responsible National Party we certainly support the Supplementary Order Paper amendments and we will be voting that way.
Shirley Ken: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Shirley Ken: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:16995] 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Whip—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I did not want to interrupt the member who has just resumed his seat. He said there had always been two bills and I raise this as a matter of procedure not as a matter of debate. We have before us Supplementary Order Paper 303 which was tabled yesterday and is titled “Foreshore and Seabed Bill”. It is a proposal only—a motion—to divide the bill into two bills. I seek clarification on whether there have always been two bills or whether there has been one bill and there is now a proposal to divide it. I would hate the Committee to be misled by the claim made by Winston Peters that there have always been two bills. I seek clarification that my understanding is correct: that there is one bill and a proposal has been made to divide it. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member has made his point.
Cosgrove Clayton: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Cosgrove Clayton: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:17047] 
CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Vote: New Zealand Symphony Orchestra Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: New Zealand Symphony Orchestra Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12318] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 41 
New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 78 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 26. 
Amendment not agreed to.
Hunt Jonathan: Points of Order — Law Commission Reports—Availability 
Hunt Jonathan: Points of Order — Law Commission Reports—Availability 
[Volume:616;Page:11702] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: They are in the Bills Office. If the member wants to go there to get a copy he can have one. 
DAIL JONES 
: But my point is that some members got it at about 11 o’clock 10 o’clock or 9 o’clock so why was New Zealand First able to get it only at 1 o’clock?
Hughes Darren: Crimes and Misconduct (Overseas Operations) Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Hughes Darren: Crimes and Misconduct (Overseas Operations) Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12231] 
DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 It is a true pleasure and delight to follow the sacked Opposition defence spokesperson—the member for Epsom Richard Worth. I just wish that when he had been the spokesperson on defence he had used the words that we have just heard from him because he just told the House that New Zealand punches above its weight on international commitments and I totally agree with the member on that point. I think it is absolutely right that New Zealand has a proud record in these areas. Yet when he had responsibility for defence he never said those things. So I am glad we have given him the opportunity under urgency on the Crimes and Misconduct (Overseas Operations) Bill for him to come down and fess up as to his true belief in New Zealand’s great reputation in these areas. To that end I support the third reading of this bill.
Pettis Jill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Pettis Jill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:613;Page:10146] 
7.  
JILL PETTIS (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Foreign Affairs 
: What changes are being proposed to the reciprocal working holiday schemes between New Zealand and other countries? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade) 
: 
Demand for places on New Zealand’s very successful working holiday schemes has been such that this week Cabinet has made the decision to expand the number of places available from 25000 at present to 31000 next year with further increases after that possible. That will allow 1000 additional young people from the United Kingdom 700 from Ireland 1200 from Canada 1000 from Germany 500 from France and an additional 200 each from the Netherlands Chile and Sweden. 
Jill Pettis 
: What are the advantages of expanding the working holiday schemes? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The first advantage is that it is reciprocal. It means that increased numbers of young New Zealanders can go to those countries to work and holiday for up to a year. Secondly the research that is being done on working holiday schemes specifically the Australian research shows that working holiday schemes have a positive net effect on the labour market—that is they create more jobs than they displace. Thirdly they expose New Zealand to talented young people from other countries a great number of whom apply to live here permanently and others come back as tourists when they are highly paid and spend a lot of money here.
Field Taito Phillip: Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Field Taito Phillip: Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:625;Page:20188] 
Hon TAITO PHILLIP FIELD (Minister of State) 
: 
 I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill 
that it take the bill part by part 
. 
Motion agreed to.
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
Cullen Michael: Business Statement 
[Volume:612;Page:9035] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Yes the House can anticipate urgency the week after next. As usual that will finish by 6 o’clock Friday. In relation to the seabed and foreshore legislation when it is ready time will be made available. There are a limited number of bills to be passed that are not yet on the Order Paper. I think there are probably seven or eight bills to be passed. Of course there will be a number of other bills for first reading—quite a few of those.