edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Duncan Helen: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Duncan Helen: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:607;Page:4326] 
3.  
HELEN DUNCAN (NZ Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What initiatives have been put in place to strengthen support for early childhood education services? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 The most recent is the planned integration of the Early Childhood Development agency into the Ministry of Education. We want to make sure there is a cohesive—[ 
Interruption 
] There we go again—7 percent and falling! We want to make sure there is a cohesive integrated and streamlined approach to early childhood education. Later this year all the relevant experts will be under one roof to ensure the effective implementation of the early childhood education strategy which aims to improve quality and participation. 
Helen Duncan 
: Can the Minister tell the House how this initiative fits with the Government’s broader objectives for early childhood education? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Relatively briefly this Government has increased the level of funding received by all services introduced equity funding increased the pool of money for buildings and extensions improved the requirements for teachers’ qualifications made available scholarships and grants for teacher supply and provided funding to establish centres of innovation. Like Dr Brash rapidly becoming the favourite of the people for the National Party leadership we believe in early childhood education. 
Phil Heatley 
: Can the Minister provide an assurance that this old-left statist merger of the Early Childhood Development agency into the ministry will not result in cuts to early childhood resources and staff; if not why not? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I totally reject the assertion in the first part of the question. I will be sending it to my Labour electorate committee to remind its members that at least some people think of me in that way. I am quite prepared to give the assurance the member seeks. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: How does the policy of funding rate 2 early childhood education providers at a rate so much lower than kindergartens that they could not provide pay parity rates even if they wanted to strengthen early childhood services? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Rate 2 funding is available for many more hours than rate 3 funding is.
Cullen Michael: Urgency 
Cullen Michael: Urgency 
[Volume:626;Page:21301] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Yes.
Vote: Corrections Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Corrections Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:13021] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 208 in name of Stephen Franks to omit subclauses (2) (5) and (6) from clause 19 be agreed to.
Visitors — Norway—Minister of Education and Research 
Visitors — Norway—Minister of Education and Research 
[Volume:620;Page:16163] 
Thursday 14 October 2004 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Visitors 
Norway—Minister of Education and Research 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing members that Her Excellency Ms Kristin Clemet Minister of Education and Research Norway is within the precincts of this Chamber. I am sure that members would wish that she be welcomed and accorded a seat on the left of the Chair. 
Her Excellency Ms Kristin Clemet accompanied by the Hon Trevor Mallard entered the Chamber and took a seat on the left of the Chair.
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:612;Page:8963] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 Having obtained via my colleague verbal permission to do this I seek leave to table information that says that Mrs Grimsdell has long since had the satisfactory heart ultrasound screening so what the Prime Minister is talking about in terms of delay no one knows about—she never knows. 
Document not tabled.
Vote: Parole (Extended Supervision) and Sentencing Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee 
Vote: Parole (Extended Supervision) and Sentencing Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee 
[Volume:618;Page:14156] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments recommended by the Justice and Electoral Committee by majority be agreed to. 
Ayes 93 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; Green Party 5; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 26 
New Zealand First 13; Green Party 4; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Question agreed to
Points of Order — Urgent Debate Declined 
Points of Order — Urgent Debate Declined 
[Volume:608;Page:5164] 
Points of Order 
Urgent Debate Declined 
GERRY BROWNLEE (NZ National—Ilam) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I respectfully raise the issue of the National Party’s request yesterday for a snap debate on the announcement of the power savings. We fully accept the ruling you gave us yesterday but it has not been reported in  
Hansard 
 as yet and we have not been able to consider it at any great length. We certainly noticed that in the text of our own letter we covered all the points required for such a decision to be granted. We particularly note that this was a Government decision that had ministerial responsibility and was of such importance that it was given priority at the press conference. Further it was a new announcement and it was the first time that the Government itself had sought to ask for savings of any type or at any level. So we are a little perplexed that it did not seem to have the gravitas necessary or meet the test that you set for such debates to take place. 
We would respectfully ask whether you could give us a bit of paper that might give us greater guidance in the future as to how these debates should be requested. If it is a problem with the text then we certainly want to know about that but we would have thought that a problem with the way in which something is written would not alter the substance of the argument being advanced. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I appreciate the way in which the member has raised the point of order. I made a decision—which of course I will not be reviewing—but I am prepared to consider it and give the member some advice. The Standing Order is quite specific.
Robertson H V Ross: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Robertson H V Ross: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:624;Page:19121] 
12.  
H V ROSS ROBERTSON (Labour—Manukau East) 
 to the  
Minister of Tourism 
: What announcements has he made recently concerning the implementation of the New Zealand Tourism Strategy? 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Tourism) 
: 
 I am sorry the Opposition does not like the unrelenting good news but today I am releasing criteria for application to the tourism infrastructure scheme which will help qualifying small communities to fund the water and waste-water infrastructure they need to maximise benefits from New Zealand’s thriving tourism sector. 
H V Ross Robertson 
: Can the Minister tell the House what the key factors contributing to the successful implementation of the strategy have been? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I would be happy to help the member. As with the development of the strategy the success of its implementation has reflected this Government’s commitment to working with key sector interests and operators to build effective partnerships. I will add for the member’s benefit that this is in stark contrast to the wreckage left behind by the last National Government’s Minister of Tourism. 
Mike Ward 
: What measures does the Minister have up his sleeve to persuade more New Zealanders to take more of their holidays in New Zealand in view of the fact that so many overseas visitors find us irresistible and might not doing that do more to make our tourism industry sustainable than our encouraging more people to come here from the other side of the world burning up vast quantities of fossil fuels in the process? 
Simon Power 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I apologise to the member but members at this end of the House are having real difficulty hearing him with several conservations going on in the House. I am sure the Minister would want to hear what the member has to say and so does the rest of the House. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Thank you Mr Power. I hope all members of the House heard and understood that questions should be heard in silence. 
Mike Ward 
: What measures does the Minister have up his sleeve to persuade more New Zealanders to take more of their holidays here in New Zealand in view of the fact that so many overseas visitors find us irresistible; and might not increasing domestic tourism add more to the sustainability of the industry than our persuading more people to come from the other side of the world to visit us? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: The member is quite correct that this country is a highly desirable destination. I am sure he will be pleased to know that more than 50 percent of New Zealand’s income through tourism does still come from domestic tourism. It is an area in which I will continue to work with the industry and I am happy to engage with the member as well. He clearly has a real interest.
Chadwick Steve: Films Videos and Publications Classification  Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Chadwick Steve: Films Videos and Publications Classification  Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:623;Page:18442] 
STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) 
: 
 I am pleased to take a call on this very important bill. I just remind those in the House who were not members of the Government Administration Committee that this bill came about following an inquiry and the fact that technological changes have advanced over 11 years. We wanted legislation that would protect our innocent children and we looked at the penalties for those who produce trade and distribute pornography. The penalties in this bill reflect the very protections that came out of the inquiry—so that process had to be done—and then this bill was made much clearer in terms of the direction in which we had to look. We had to look at what was deemed objectionable material—and that has been considerably strengthened in this legislation—and at the penalties for production trading and possession. I am thrilled that the penalties for possession have been increased to bring them into line with the UK and Canada. 
The  
Time 
 magazine article that intimated that New Zealand was a haven for pornographers and pushers of pornography has it completely wrong. The committee went to the Department of Internal Affairs and saw the robustness and rigour with which that very small tight and expert group of professionals trace pornography sites around the world and trace those who download pornography. I congratulate the Department of Internal Affairs on the work it does and I am sure that they will be able to put a more robust case when they capture those who trade in that invidious trade. 
I conclude quickly by saying that I heard the member Judith Collins talk about the hate speech inquiry. To a person all of us on the committee who heard the submitters supported the hate speech inquiry. It was a cruel shock when others came to the House screaming about the inquiry and what an erosion of civil liberties it was but we on that committee said to a tee that we would support the hate speech inquiry.
Copeland Gordon: Crimes and Misconduct (Overseas Operations) Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Copeland Gordon: Crimes and Misconduct (Overseas Operations) Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12237] 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 I rise just to signal once again United Future’s support for the Crimes and Misconduct (Overseas Operations) Bill. It seems to me that in the end this bill has struck a very good balance. On the one hand it ensures that New Zealand police and civilians deployed overseas by our Government in peacekeeping roles in serious situations such as they face in the Solomons have the protection of New Zealand law so that they are not subject to undue prosecution or arrest by people in the local situation and therefore exposed to its volatility when they are on active duty under orders from New Zealand. On the other hand it ensures that those people should they commit crimes in those situations do not escape punishment for those crimes but are answerable to New Zealand courts and the New Zealand nation under New Zealand law. 
I feel it is important that our nation pass this bill into law as we are doing this evening because I strongly suspect—as does Ron Mark of New Zealand First—that this will not be the last time we have to deploy police and civilians in peacekeeping roles within our region of the Pacific. Unfortunately we live in an area of the world that is subject to a fair degree of political instability in a lot of the developing and emerging nations that surround us in the islands of the Pacific. It always seems very tragic to me that people who live in paradise in terms of climate and surroundings nevertheless very often do not seem to be able to bring peace and stability to their own nations and their own political systems. So it seems to me that we will probably be doing this again and with that in mind I think it is very important that this law is in place so that we have a clear basis on which to go forward. 
With those few remarks I have pleasure in signalling our support for this third reading.
Hunt Jonathan: Urgent Debates Declined — Local Government—Election Results 
Hunt Jonathan: Urgent Debates Declined — Local Government—Election Results 
[Volume:620;Page:16099] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member is just compounding the issue. I have ruled. There is no case because the matter should have been raised yesterday. An urgent question was raised by Dr Smith. I said that although it was not strictly urgent I realised it was a serious point and I allowed it to be raised at that time.
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 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 63 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Papers 166 172 and 191 in the name of the Hon Phil Goff be agreed to.
Sowry Roger: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
Sowry Roger: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
[Volume:608;Page:5571] 
Hon ROGER SOWRY (Deputy Leader—NZ National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. That is up to the Minister but you said “The Ayes have it.” We did not call a party vote no one from the other side called a party vote so one presumes that we move on. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: There is a ruling that the Chair knows what the majority in the House is. The majority has indicated that it is not in support of this amendment and the Minister has indicated that she is not in support of this amendment. Is a party vote called for?
Collins Judith: Auckland War Memorial Museum Site Empowering Bill — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Collins Judith: Auckland War Memorial Museum Site Empowering Bill — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:611;Page:8377] 
JUDITH COLLINS (NZ National—Clevedon) 
: 
 I was refreshing my memory by rereading the bill just a moment ago. I am slightly concerned that we might have made an error and even more so that I might have made an error when we were looking at this bill at the select committee. Given the fact that I am a very passionate supporter of the recognition of the museum site as a war memorial I was slightly concerned to read in clause 5(2) that the land described in the schedule must be used exclusively as a site for the museum. But nowhere in that part does it state that it must be used as a site for the museum and the war memorial. The museum is in fact a war memorial and in front of the museum is the cenotaph. I was particularly concerned to check to make sure that our select committee had not made an error because if we had this would be the time to get it fixed. I know that all parties in the Committee wish the museum trust board well and want it to be able to get its work started and completed in a timely fashion. 
I had the assistance of my colleague Mr Dail Jones who happened to have a copy of the Auckland War Memorial Museum Act 1996. It is an Act that was popped through when National was last in Government. In particular I note that the museum trust board people told me that they particularly liked that Act because it worked. I had a look through it and I am now satisfied that the war memorial part is so much an integral part of the Act that it will be fine and I should not be worrying so much about it. But I do take this very seriously and I find it very hurtful in the Committee tonight that some members in the Labour Party—and fortunately not all of them—have been very disrespectful over this bill. I would like to exclude from that comment Taito Phillip Field who has been extremely helpful and considerate. I send him greetings and say malo. I very much understand that he feels as I do that this bill and the site itself are incredibly important not only to Maori New Zealanders Pakeha New Zealanders Pasifika people but also to all people who wish to be called New Zealanders. It is a huge building with massive amounts of taonga and treasures and it is something that should not be taken lightly. I am concerned that some people feel that because some of us feel deeply about this and wish to speak on it in some way this has been frivolous. It is not. This is a very important bill for people like myself who believe deeply in the culture of New Zealand and in the need for us as New Zealanders to respect that.
Sowry Roger: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Sowry Roger: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:616;Page:11643] 
Hon ROGER SOWRY (National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I want to pick up on an issue that has arisen out of the responses from the Minister of Civil Defence to the last question on the Order Paper. The Minister of Civil Defence said two things. One was that the lahar warning system had not failed and then the House gave leave for my colleague the Hon Nick Smith to table documentation showing that it had failed and giving the date that it had failed. Then the Minister went on to say that the Government had not had a report and one of the ACT members sought to table that report. The point I am making is that if the Minister has been getting incorrect advice or giving answers to the House that are not correct will he take the opportunity now to correct them or are we going to wait until tomorrow’s question time?
Amended Answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 7 to Minister 16 March 
Amended Answers to Oral Questions — Question No. 7 to Minister 16 March 
[Volume:616;Page:11990] 
Amended Answers to Oral Questions 
Question No. 7 to Minister 16 March 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister of Fisheries) 
: 
 On that day the Rt Hon Winston Peters asked me which appeals to the Catch History Review Committee Jacqui Lowe sat on prior to March 2004. I gave the following response. “I am advised that Jacqui Lowe has sat on 23 appeals since January 2001. Information on her involvement in all proceedings since her appointment in 1998 is not immediately available but I will provide it in writing to the honourable member as soon as possible.” The more detailed information I promised to the member is now available and will be provided to Mr Peters today. More important I must make a correction to the first part of my response in that Ms Lowe has sat on 24 not 23 appeals to the Catch History Review Committee since January 1998.
Cullen Michael: Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi Claims Settlement Bill — Procedure 
Cullen Michael: Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi Claims Settlement Bill — Procedure 
[Volume:627;Page:21915] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Following agreement between the whips I seek leave for the House to proceed directly to the third reading of the Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi Claims Settlement Bill upon the completion of the Committee stage. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is no objection.
Hunt Jonathan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Hunt Jonathan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:611;Page:8114] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member can make that submission to the Standing Orders Committee. I am bound by the current Standing Orders. I just say in ruling on the point that there is no longer any leave of absence provisions in our Standing Orders. That is something that the member might want to make a submission on. I have no role in ensuring attendance; I have a role in ensuring that the question will be answered by a Minister of the Crown.
Robertson H V Ross: Holidays Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Robertson H V Ross: Holidays Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:16052] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The amendment in the name of Dr Wayne Mapp to insert new clause 11 is inconsistent with the previous decision on clause 3 so it is out of order.
Cullen Michael: Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Bill — Procedure In Committee 
Cullen Michael: Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Bill — Procedure In Committee 
[Volume:623;Page:18908] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think there is a little bit of confusion from members opposite. I will just consult. First of all Te PuniKokiri is not involved in this bill—it is a private bill prepared outside. [ 
Interruption 
] Sorry? To offer advice; they are allowed to offer advice. [ 
Interruption 
] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: We have a point of order. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: If ever the member is in Government he may find that that is the case. The text of this bill—if the member would care to listen and not give a running commentary from his seat on a point of order—is in English. There is no Maori text in the bill. The only text in Maori is in the schedule which is a quotation from an existing piece of legislation and there is an English version in the schedule. The bill is only in English. 
The two versions the member referred to relate to the select committee commentary being in English and Maori. The commentary is interesting but it is not what the House will enact. The House enacts the bill not the select committee commentary. The select committee has chosen to have a commentary whereby the numbering of the paragraphs is different but I am informed that it has considered the translation and is satisfied that the actual translations match in terms of meaning. That is what the committee is for. Either way it is irrelevant to the consideration of the Committee of the whole House. It is not a fault in the text of what will be considered by the Committee. The Committee does not consider at any point the motion that it agree to the text of the commentary from the select committee. All the Committee can be asked to agree to is the preamble Parts 1 2 and 3 and back to the commencement and title clauses. They are in one language English. The member does not have a point and we do not care to repeat the nonsense we had on the other Ngati Awa bill.
Vote: Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:6767] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 60 
Labour 52; United Future 8. 
Noes 54 
New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; Green Party 9. 
Motion agreed to.
Vote: Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8729] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 4 as amended be agreed to 
.  
Ayes 82 
Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 35 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Part 4 as amended agreed to.
Hunt Jonathan: Urgent Debates Declined — Rise in National Certificate of Educational Achievement Fees 
Hunt Jonathan: Urgent Debates Declined — Rise in National Certificate of Educational Achievement Fees 
[Volume:606;Page:3354] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from the Hon Brian Donnelly seeking to debate under Standing Order 376 a rise in NCEA fees. The member has not provided authentication with his application and I decline it on that ground. I refer members to Speaker’s ruling 131/4 and my rulings in  
Hansard 
 Volume 585 at page 3768 and Volume 604 at page 1810.
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:13496] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Part 2 clauses 28 to 52 includes debate on schedule 5.
Burton Mark: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Burton Mark: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:623;Page:18817] 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 I will quickly respond now that members have finished. The ancillary claims relate to specific sites that are returned to an identified group of owners. It is fair to say that the more general apology relates to the whole population of Ngati Awa.
Voting — Correction 
Voting — Correction 
[Volume:607;Page:4604] 
Voting 
Correction 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Before I take the next speaker I want to refer to a matter here. It is a correction to the vote and I have to report to the House that in the Committee stage of this bill on the question of the closure for Part 1 quite some time ago the result was announced as Ayes 60 Noes 47. It should have been Ayes 60 Noes 57.
Pettis Jill: Taxation (Annual Rates Maori Organisations Taxpayer Compliance and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Pettis Jill: Taxation (Annual Rates Maori Organisations Taxpayer Compliance and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:606;Page:4103] 
JILL PETTIS (Junior Whip—NZ Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Baldock Larry: Resource Management (Energy and Climate Change) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Baldock Larry: Resource Management (Energy and Climate Change) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:615;Page:11336] 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 Generally I think the title of this bill is a fairly good one but I have a couple of suggestions that might make what this bill is about a little clearer. It probably could have been called the “Levelling of the Playing Field (Energy and Climate Change) Bill” because really that is what the bill attempts to do. It is not about giving a leg-up to renewable energies but rather levelling the playing field. 
It is often more difficult to get consents for renewable energy projects because they intend to be more obtrusive. They intend to have more impact upon the public and therefore there can be more objectors to them—for example windmills or wind farms. If someone is able to perfect the engineering for tidal generation it will be pretty hard to get consent for sticking something in the middle of Tauranga Harbour for example. So this bill will help to level out the playing field. 
Another title could be “It’s Definitely Not the Banning of the Coal Bill”. That is one that United Future would like because that is the truth. This bill is not about banning the opportunity for coal generation. In fact we think it might actually give some assistance to it. It could be called the “Responsible Common-sense (Energy and Climate Change) Bill”. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
LARRY BALDOCK 
: Before the dinner break I was just making some comments about possible alternative titles to this bill. I think I mentioned that it could have been called the “Not the Banning of Coal Bill” because clearly this bill does not restrict the use of coal as a fuel. The final suggestion I would make is that it could have been called the “Common-sense Response to Climate Change and Not the Kyoto Amendment Bill” because it is really a common-sense response to our need to take care of issues relating to climate change without going over the top and signing up to the Kyoto Protocol which is a bureaucratic nightmare. With those comments I shall end my contribution.
Jones Dail: Electoral Amendment Bill Broadcasting Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Readings 
Jones Dail: Electoral Amendment Bill Broadcasting Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Readings 
[Volume:622;Page:17335] 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First supports this legislation. It is very straightforward. The amendments were unanimously supported by the parliamentary select committee that considered the bill—now split into two bills for its third reading—in its original form. It is hard to believe that anyone could object to any aspect of the legislation when all parties had unanimously supported it. There was even a reference to the question of hoardings in the report back of the Justice and Electoral Committee. The last sentence of the commentary on the bill states: “We note this proposal corresponds with a recommendation in our Inquiry into the 2002 General Election report; namely that: Amendments to electoral legislation for the 2005 General Election include national guidelines on hoardings.” That was said in the report on the 2002 general election and it was said generally in so far as this bill was concerned. It is hard to believe that anyone could have opposed those unanimous provisions although as the previous National Party speaker indicated his party decided to oppose something that had been part of a unanimous approval. 
The change to the hoardings requirement is so logical that it is difficult to believe that anyone could possibly have opposed it. Often at a general election when one’s electorate covers three or more local authorities one might have to design three or more types of hoardings to meet those various local body requirements. That just creates more tension around regulations and more work for bureaucrats. This legislation gives one an opportunity to have one type of hoarding if one so wishes up to a certain specification. This bill also provides that 50 percent of the number of parties—or half the number of parties—or 75 percent of all the parties must be involved in discussions with the Government of the day if any changes are to be made. It is a very simple requirement that every other party in the House but the National Party has supported although the National Party did support it at the select committee. There is really nothing else to say about this legislation. New Zealand First supports it and I look forward to it being passed.
Hunt Jonathan: Speaker’s Rulings — Privileges of the House and Speaker’s Actions 
Hunt Jonathan: Speaker’s Rulings — Privileges of the House and Speaker’s Actions 
[Volume:611;Page:8653] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thank the member for that suggestion. Could I give it some thought and come back to the House on it later this afternoon. As far as the Hon Roger Sowry is concerned there is not necessarily a rule against interviewing persons within the precincts. That is a matter that I want to clarify in the discussions I have with the police. I was not aware of the fact that there had been any call to my office.
Vote: New Organisms and Other Matters Bill — In Committee 
Vote: New Organisms and Other Matters Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:8950] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 11 
Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Noes 104 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to.
Benson-Pope David: Government Superannuation Fund Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee Procedure 
Benson-Pope David: Government Superannuation Fund Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:606;Page:3891] 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (Senior Whip—NZ Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members Questions to Ministers 
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:618;Page:14479] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Do we take it that those who have denied Dr Smith leave in this case are saying that the veracity of his notes is not as good as those of Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade officials who sit in— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No the member knows that is not a point of order.
Consumer Protection (Definitions of Goods and Services) Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH 
Consumer Protection (Definitions of Goods and Services) Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH 
[Volume:609;Page:6838] 
Consumer Protection (Definitions of Goods and Services) Bill 
Instruction to CommitteeCWH 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Minister of Consumer Affairs) 
: I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Consumer Protection (Definitions of Goods and Services) Bill that it take the bill part by part and consider any schedules as one question. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 69 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 46 
New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Motion agreed to.
Pettis Jill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Pettis Jill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:607;Page:4328] 
5.  
JILL PETTIS (NZ Labour—Whanganui) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade (Official Development Assistance) 
: How are contributions from New Zealand’s development assistance programme supporting democracy in the Asia-Pacific region and what are the benefits? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Associate Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade (Official Development Assistance)) 
: 
 Contributions from New Zealand support democracy and good governance by providing election support training judges strengthening civil society groups and other contributions such as the provision of $1 million for New Zealand police to mentor Solomon Islands police. This helps to reduce poverty and bolsters regional security which in turn increases trade and investment opportunities for both the recipient country and New Zealand. 
Jill Pettis 
: What is the most recent initiative the Government has taken to support democracy in the Asia-Pacific region and what is the desired outcome of that initiative? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: Just last month New Zealand gave $455000 to help Cambodia run its national elections. After 3 decades of war and violence a positive outcome for Cambodia would be a peaceful just election in which all Cambodians get a say in how their country is run. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Why does the Government not put priority on dealing with the humanitarian and reconstruction issues for a future democratic Iraq instead of—this week of all weeks—focusing on the Asia-Pacific region which is obviously the ideological obsession of the Prime Minister? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: There are many wars in the world. The contribution of New Zealand aid is focused first of all on our backyard. I would have thought that the member would realise that if there were a civil war in our backyard it would have an immediate and quite detrimental impact on this country. 
Dail Jones 
: What is new about this policy given that the report of the ministerial review team of March 2001 indicates that the origins of this policy go back to 1901 and that successive New Zealand Governments have since that time maintained this policy? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: What is new about this policy is that firstly it is a focus on the Pacific—our near neighbours—and secondly it is a focus on the eradication of poverty. That is a quite distinct change from how New Zealand aid which is now a semi-autonomous body has been working since 1901.
Smith Nick: Resource Management and Electricity Legislation Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Smith Nick: Resource Management and Electricity Legislation Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:627;Page:22314] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I shall take a brief call to answer the points that have been raised by Dail Jones about my amendments. First he makes the point that councils can make changes to their district plan. That is true with or without my amendment and they can do it as often as they like in proposing new plans. 
The law as it stands under the Resource Management Act is that if one has an existing plan and a proposed plan whatever is the more restrictive applies in the interim. For instance at the moment the Auckland City Council district plan states that 85 decibels is the minimum noise level and if the plan is amended to provide for a minimum noise level of 88 decibels—which is the proposal from the Auckland City Council to solve the problem of the speedway—then the lesser of 88 and 85 is still 85. 
The key change provided by my amendment is that when the council proposes its change it can make the decision as to whether it applies immediately. In other words it has the choice—it is not automatically the most restrictive; it is for the council to determine. So it makes no difference as to the number of changes that can be made. The only significant change my amendment would make is that the council has the discretion when it introduces a proposed plan to say which of those will apply in the interim and that is different from the current law. And yes it will solve the problem of the speedway and it will be a test of this Parliament as to whether it is prepared to back those 50000 users and support this amendment.
Smith Lockwood: Social Security (Long-term Residential Care) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Smith Lockwood: Social Security (Long-term Residential Care) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:621;Page:16774] 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am just seeking your guidance so that we understand how the Standing Orders are applied. If you have called a vote and a party is not present in the House when you call that party and if a member of that party subsequently comes into the House is it in order then for that party to seek to be able to lodge a vote? What is the ruling in respect of that? Obviously while it is not particularly important on this vote one can imagine a situation where it would be important and I wonder at what point is the cut-off for a party to come into the House to vote.
Vote: Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:620;Page:15410] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 51; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 58 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 244 in the name of the Hon Marian Hobbs to Part 4 be agreed to.
Mallard Trevor: Urgent Debates Declined — Transpower Financing Deal—Tax Significance 
Mallard Trevor: Urgent Debates Declined — Transpower Financing Deal—Tax Significance 
[Volume:626;Page:21057] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Associate Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I think it is important to clarify an answer that was given in the House earlier and I seek some indulgence of the House to do that. The Minister of Finance made it clear that he would expect in his role as an ownership Minister for a State-owned enterprise if such a State-owned enterprise was placing at risk the revenue of New Zealand to be informed as part of the no-surprises policy. He made that clear to the House earlier. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Madam Speaker— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I do not want any further discussion on this. That was a clarification of what the Minister said. We are now getting into debating matters.
Choudhary Ashraf: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Choudhary Ashraf: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:611;Page:8522] 
2.  
Dr ASHRAF  
CHOUDHARY 
 (NZ Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What feedback has he received from the education sector on the publication of the Best Evidence Synthesis research? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 The feedback I have received to date has been very positive. The best-evidence research draws together educational research and evaluation evidence about how to improve learning. It draws on evidence not on theory or ideology. I have spoken to a number of people within the sector since the material was released and I am very pleased to hear that the research has been generating very positive discussions in staffrooms around the country. It will be of great assistance to teachers in improving classroom practice and to the Government in setting professional development and other priorities. 
Dr Ashraf Choudhary 
: What are some of the findings of this research? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The research has found that within the education system the quality of teaching practice by teachers is the largest influence on the achievement of children in schooling—greater than school-level influences and other factors such as classroom programme curriculum resources or socio-economic environment. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: To what extent are the best-evidence syntheses informing the work on benchmarking of qualifications being carried out in the compulsory sector so that what teachers are paid can be related to skills and knowledge most closely associated with positive learning outcomes? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The quality of teaching practice and how it relates to the salary system is something that is certainly part of those discussions and the Ministry of Education is drawing on this for that purpose. It is fair to say that there is not always unanimity on the point. 
Bernie Ogilvy 
: Can the Minister confirm that Best Evidence Synthesis research applies scientific strategies that limit bias to their assembly critical appraisal and synthesis of all relevant studies on a specific topic yet seeks to exclude so-called poor-quality studies via explicit validity checks; and can he tell the House what explicit validity checks were employed in the case of the studies he has just mentioned because I am sure we are all dying to know? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: As far as is possible looking carefully at the research to ensure the research is based on evidence is the validity check that is important. A number of researchers have relied very heavily on theory or ideology in their research. What this does is work out what actually works not the sometimes questionable material that sits behind it.
Peck Mark: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Peck Mark: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:621;Page:16312] 
7.  
MARK PECK (Labour—Invercargill) 
 to the  
Minister for Crown Research Institutes 
: What progress has been made in reducing the backlog in the scientific investigation of clandestine methamphetamine laboratories? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister for Crown Research Institutes) 
: 
 Excellent progress. The backlog has been effectively halved since January down from around 180 cases to around 90 today. 
Mark Peck 
: What factors have influenced the reduction in times in getting things done through the methamphetamine laboratories? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: All sorts of factors. New scientists have been hired there is new equipment and increased funding and there are new internal working practices with the police and the courts which is why if current trends continue we expect to be down to a normal caseload by July next year. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: Does the Minister agree with the decision by the Institute of Environmental Science and Research to give priority to urine-testing workers for weekend drug use such as its recent attempts to sell urine testing to the hospitality industry and how does that impact on its ability to do real work such as investigating methamphetamine laboratories? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I regret I do not have an answer for the member’s question but would be happy to supply him with one if he would like to put it down as a written question.
Jones Dail: Racing Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Jones Dail: Racing Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:606;Page:3963] 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 I refer to the role of the governing body the membership of the governing body and the nomination of the advisory panel as set out in Part 2. The bill states that the governing body should consist of seven members and the racing working-party group refers to that in paragraph 4.5 of its report. It states that the governing body should consist of seven members and an independent chairperson appointed by the Minister one person appointed by the Minister on the nomination of New Zealand Thoroughbred Racing Inc. one person appointed by the Minister on the nomination of Harness Racing New Zealand one person appointed by the New Zealand Greyhound Racing Association and three persons appointed by the Minister on the advice of the nomination advisory panel. Clause 12 refers to the nomination advisory panel. 
Let us remember then that the nomination advisory panel is to nominate three persons for appointment to the governing body. Clause 12 states that the nomination advisory panel consist of five persons: the responsible Minister; the independent chairperson of the board; and the chairpersons of the three racing codes. How the panel will ultimately appoint those three persons who will be the chairman of the advisory panel and on what sort of basis the nominations will be made are interesting questions. I presume that in some cases the nomination may end up being determined by a majority vote. I see with interest that the working-group refers at paragraph 4.5.2 of its report to the composition qualifications and experience required of board members to the term of the appointments referred to and to the appointments advisory panel. 
When I looked at all those things and heard the comments made by Mr Lindsay Tisch on the very important question of how the income earned by the new board is to be utilised it seemed to me that there is a very good case for holding this bill back for a couple of weeks while some of these matters are further considered as has been suggested by New Zealand First. I will be interested to hear the Minister’s comments on that matter.
Vote: Forests Amendment Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Forests Amendment Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:12910] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the report be adopted. 
Ayes 97 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 26; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 22 
New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Report adopted.