edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Dyson Ruth: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
Dyson Ruth: Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
[Volume:625;Page:20282] 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for ACC) 
: 
 I would like to take a brief call to respond to the very valid question that Katherine Rich has raised. I understand that she was not on the Health Committee because she held a different Opposition shadow portfolio at the time. It was before— 
Darren Hughes 
: What was she? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Oh she was spokesperson on social development and employment I think but that was before she was demoted by her leader—and in quite an unjustified way in my view. But I know that she raised the question genuinely. Frankly we have now substituted for the expression “is not liable to” in some parts of the legislation as outlined in schedule 1 the expression “is not required to” and in other parts of the legislation we have replaced those same four words with “must not” for the very reason that Katherine Rich raised. She said that she thought that “is not liable to” meant there may be some discretion—that the Accident Compensation Corporation was not legally responsible for doing so and could not be held to be in breach of its statutory responsibility if it did not. That is what some of us may have interpreted that expression to mean but unfortunately legal opinion thought otherwise. In fact two legal opinions from my recollection thought otherwise and that is a clear case that one is on a hiding to nothing unless one clarifies the situation by changing the law. So that is exactly the purpose of the change in both schedules 1 and 2. 
Members will notice that starting with clause 4 in schedule 1 the words “is not required to” are substituted for “is not liable to”. Therefore the discretion exists but it is a discretion on a case by case basis. The corporation is not required to do so—it is not an automatic entitlement. A does not necessarily follow if B has happened whereas as outlined in the schedule that Katherine Rich referred to from section 118 onwards the corporation must not provide that. There is no discretion and no opportunity for the corporation to do so because we have made it very clear that the corporation must not. So it is for precisely the reason that the member has raised in her question that we have separated out the 29 examples I think—I may be wrong about the number but however many there are—of “is not liable to” that are in the legislation and instead of having that term which could mean one thing to one person and another thing to others we are making it really clear exactly what is meant by putting it in straightforward English. I know that Peter Brown will be ecstatic at the fact that this legislation actually states directly what it means. It cannot be misinterpreted so this is one part of the legislation that I know Mr Brown will celebrate.
Fitzsimons Jeanette: Goods and Services Tax (Exclusion of Rates) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Fitzsimons Jeanette: Goods and Services Tax (Exclusion of Rates) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:619;Page:14642] 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 This issue has rankled with the public for many years and many people perceive GST on rates to be unfair. It was hotly debated at the time that GST was introduced and it has been debated ever since. There is also a lot of debate and I have to say public misunderstanding about what rates actually are. 
We have serious reservations about this bill as it stands and we have no commitment to what happens after the select committee process. But we think it is time the public had those concerns addressed and that there was a forum where this could be properly debated where people could bring submissions and where a committee could report back with good reasons for either accepting or rejecting it. For that reason the Greens will support sending this bill to a select committee so that the debate can be had. 
There is a lot of misunderstanding about what rates actually are and that is partly because over the years they have acquired a number of very different components. It is just possible that the select committee might decide that those components ought to be treated in different ways. Uniform annual charges for example—where every property is levied a fixed amount to cover particular services—are clearly a fee for service as are targeted rates. Those components of rates ought to attract GST because they are a commercial service and are directly in competition with other commercial services. 
However rates on land value which are not related to the nature of the service received are in fact a tax. They are actually the only form of property or asset tax that exists in New Zealand unlike most developed countries which have a range of asset-related taxes; whether they be capital gains taxes asset taxes wealth taxes or death duties. New Zealand has none of those but it does have one remaining asset tax which are rates on the land value or the capital value of property. As such that is clearly a tax and that is the component of rates that perhaps should be investigated to see whether it is appropriate to levy a further tax on top of that. We have no fixed opinion on that at present but we would be interested to see what a select committee would do with it. 
It is also not clear to me why GST on rates is any different from GST on other forms of tax such as excise tariffs. Again that is an issue the select committee could sort out. Having said that we will vote for the bill at this stage and we wait with keen interest to see what happens after that.
Carter John: Copyright (Parallel Importation of Films and Onus of Proof) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
Carter John: Copyright (Parallel Importation of Films and Onus of Proof) Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:612;Page:9393] 
JOHN CARTER (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 If there is a motion to recall the Speaker having just spoken with the senior Government whip then the most expedient thing is to recall the Speaker and I think we can resolve the issue. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Does the honourable member Brent Catchpole still intend to seek the recall of the Speaker? 
Brent Catchpole 
: Yes I do. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Would the member like to put the motion please?
Hunt Jonathan: Points of Order — Presentation of Report of Privileges Committee 
Hunt Jonathan: Points of Order — Presentation of Report of Privileges Committee 
[Volume:610;Page:7637] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have said that I will be guided by what the House says but in the end I will determine based on the law whether a seat has become vacant.
Appropriation (2002/03 Financial Review) Bill — Second Reading 
Appropriation (2002/03 Financial Review) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:11644] 
Appropriation (2002/03 Financial Review) Bill 
Second Reading 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I move  
That the Appropriation (2002/03 Financial Review) Bill be now read a second time 
. 
Bill read a second time.
Hunt Jonathan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members Questions to Ministers 
Hunt Jonathan: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:615;Page:11505] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I did not hear him use that word. If I had I would have required him to withdraw and apologise immediately and then he would have been sent out. The member is perfectly correct. When the Minister comes into the Chamber next he will be asked to withdraw and apologise for that comment. He will be asked whether he made that statement. If he says that he did make that statement then he will have to withdraw and apologise for it. I will not call him back until he comes back. At that point he will have to do something.
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:423;Page:18529] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 If you look at the last year’s Budget you will see it is clearly delineated there that it signed up money towards drug units run by the police. There has been some controversy in this House as to whether the Government was taking sufficient steps because the police asked for more drug units and they received fewer than they had asked for. Therefore the responsibility clearly lies within the Minister of Police’s ambit and although you may say that it is drawing a long bow for the Minister of Justice to claim that it belongs there when the budgetary provisions for 2004 clearly have it with the Minister of Police.
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Brownlee Gerry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:627;Page:22172] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I think it is rather unfair that Mr Winston Peters and Mr Locke managed to interrupt the flow of this question with their valedictory-type performances. I think that if you had been able to concentrate on the whole issue you would have found that the Prime Minister has avoided answering a question. She may well have addressed it but surely when we are talking about such a sizable sum—such a big policy such a flagship policy—we would expect the Prime Minister leading the party promoting it to know the implications and be able to say simply “yes” or “no” to the figure Dr Brash raised. Clearly the Prime Minister has no idea what is going on.
Simich Clem: Christchurch City Council (Robert McDougall Gallery) Land Vesting Bill — Procedure Second Reading 
Simich Clem: Christchurch City Council (Robert McDougall Gallery) Land Vesting Bill — Procedure Second Reading 
[Volume:611;Page:8803] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Thank you for that contribution. No my rulings up to this stage have not been in error. Specifically Speaker’s ruling 110/7 does not apply to this case that we have before us. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: So he wasn’t acting as Minister when he tabled the document? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: He was not dealing with an official document. The advice I have received from the Clerk and I accept that advice is that Speaker’s ruling 110/7 is not relevant at all and that will be the end of that one. It was a tabling under Standing Order 362 which I have here and which you refer to not a tabling by leave and therein lies the difference. I think we have had a good go at this. It is now entirely over to the Hon Mark Burton. I know we are halfway through his second request for leave but he may withdraw his first request to table a document and revisit that; it is entirely up to him. He can seek leave to rescind it if he wishes.
Vote: Gambling Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Vote: Gambling Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8462] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put.. 
Ayes 62 
Labour 52; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Green Party 9. 
Motion agreed to.
Yates Dianne: Civil Union Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Yates Dianne: Civil Union Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17485] 
DIANNE YATES (Labour—Hamilton East) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Mackey Janet: Gisborne District Council (Alfred Cox Park)  Validation Bill — First Reading 
Mackey Janet: Gisborne District Council (Alfred Cox Park)  Validation Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:627;Page:22072] 
JANET MACKEY (Labour—East Coast) 
: 
 In replying to this debate I will be moving that this Gisborne District Council bill be considered by the Local Government and Environment Committee. I thank all members for their contributions intelligent and otherwise to this debate. This is as Mr Shirley says a small but irritating matter in Gisborne. It does need to be resolved by legislation and to that end the council has put forward this bill. I would just respond to Mr Williamson’s concern about what I have been doing with this bill since the matter was first raised. I can advise him that the process for dealing with local bills was changed. The bill was returned to the Gisborne District Council by the Clerk’s Office. The council had to reformat and rejig a number of aspects of the bill before it brought it back. The council has duly done that and the bill has probably gone through in record time because I certainly did not expect to see it introduced to Parliament while I was still a member. I thank all parties for their support for this legislation. I do not think it will be a matter of huge consequence for the select committee to deal with and I look forward to its passing. 
Bill read a first time. 
Bill referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee.referred to Local Government and Environment Committee
Hunt Jonathan: Visitors — Slovenia—Minister of Foreign Affairs 
Hunt Jonathan: Visitors — Slovenia—Minister of Foreign Affairs 
[Volume:615;Page:11581] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Honourable members I have much pleasure in informing you that His Excellency Dr DimitrijRupel Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Slovenia accompanied by the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade is within the precincts of the Chamber. I am sure that you would wish he be welcomed. 
His Excellency Dr DimitrijRupel accompanied by the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade entered the Chamber and took seats to the left of the Chair.
Vote: Rodney District Council (PENLINK Toll Road) Empowering Bill — Second Reading 
Vote: Rodney District Council (PENLINK Toll Road) Empowering Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:614;Page:10419] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Rodney District Council (PENLINK Toll Road) Empowering Bill be read a second time. 
Ayes 36 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 69 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Abstentions 13 
New Zealand First 13. 
Motion not agreed to.
Tisch Lindsay: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
Tisch Lindsay: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
[Volume:618;Page:14318] 
LINDSAY TISCH (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 My point goes back to the first point that I made right at the beginning of this debate when we were considering the five votes. You put the motion then— 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: No. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: The Minister shakes his head but it was my understanding that we voted at that time. Following that however Mr Tanczos said that he wanted to treat Communications Security and Intelligence as a separate vote. Now  
Hansard  
will record this and I am sure I am right because that is the point that I brought up originally. It is fine for him then to ask for a separate vote but in my view he should have sought leave to have the vote taken separately because you had already put the vote on all five. Then Mr Tanczos came forward and wanted that vote treated separately. I am sure that  
Hansard  
will support the proposition I have put. 
Now I am not saying that that is wrong. I am just saying that that was my understanding and is the reason why I brought that proposition to your attention at the beginning of this debate. National is quite happy for another vote to be taken if the member wishes to seek leave to do so.
Yates Dianne: Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2) Health and Safety in Employment Amendment Bill (No 2) Human Rights Amendment Bill — Third Readings 
Yates Dianne: Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2) Health and Safety in Employment Amendment Bill (No 2) Human Rights Amendment Bill — Third Readings 
[Volume:621;Page:16281] 
DIANNE YATES (Labour—Hamilton East) 
: 
 I rise in support of this legislation and in particular to make a point about freeloading. As a unionist working really hard to get a pay increase nothing used to annoy me more than people like members opposite who spend their time deriding unions and running them down and running down those of us who belonged to unions and worked very hard for a pay increase. Then as soon as we had got the pay increase they would have their hands out to get their share of the increase the rest of us had worked hard for. That was entirely unfair and I think this bill addresses that point very well. I totally support this move.
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:14010] 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Bill that it take the bill part by part.
Hunt Jonathan: Motions — Confidence Motion—Government 
Hunt Jonathan: Motions — Confidence Motion—Government 
[Volume:617;Page:12540] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have had no advice in writing that she is not.
Pillay Lynne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Pillay Lynne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:612;Page:9088] 
5.  
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
 to the  
Minister of Housing 
: What reports has he received on improvements in social housing provision? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Housing) 
: 
 The Housing New Zealand Corporation annual report which was tabled today records that almost 30000 people were assisted into State housing last year; 2500 State rental properties were added to the portfolio; 2600 older State houses have been insulated and retrofitted; 450 State houses have been modified; and over 89 percent of State tenants are now benefiting from an income-related rent saving households up to $60 a week. 
Lynne Pillay 
: What initiatives are under way to improve social housing provision further? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: One of the most exciting is the Government provision of $63 million to encourage local government and charitable social housing provision. A series of workshops are currently being held around the country to develop social housing partnerships. The $63 million fund which we hope will be complemented by resources from other groups will ensure that we have a great deal more social housing to help low-income families.
Burton Mark: Business Statement 
Burton Mark: Business Statement 
[Volume:611;Page:8603] 
Hon MARK BURTON (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 If the member is offering a negotiation I will be happy to meet with him on that out in the lobbies. Without his offer there will not be urgency at this stage.
Cullen Michael: Privilege — Allegations—David Benson-Pope MP 
Cullen Michael: Privilege — Allegations—David Benson-Pope MP 
[Volume:626;Page:21037] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Madam Speaker it is actually a very simple matter. You are the sole judge of whether a matter is a matter involving privilege. You have just ruled so it is out of order for a member to try to contest that ruling in any shape or form by way of a point of order. There is only one procedure by which a member may properly engage in such a challenge and that is by written notice of motion. That is well established. 
I turn to what appears to be Mr Hide’s substantial point—that is every time somebody outside this House accuses somebody inside this House of lying we should become engaged in some kind of Privileges Committee case as a consequence. I suspect that would involve pretty much everybody who has ever called a talkback radio station. It would involve a very large number of members of Parliament—not least including Mr Hide; I say that from my personal experience of hearing people outside the House making claims—and it would turn the whole process into a farce. Many people say many things about members of Parliament outside this House which many of us find quite outrageous. That does not affect what can be said inside this House about each other. Indeed it is out of order to quote what somebody outside the House said about somebody inside the House if it would have been out of order to say the same thing inside the House directly. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No I do not need any more assistance but I thank members for their comments. As members know matters of privilege are not matters for debate on the floor of this House and there is a process and a procedure to be followed. As the member knows he may follow the process of lodging a notice of motion and if he wishes assistance in doing this I suggest he ask the Clerk. If he wants any further consideration of the matter I suggest he sees me outside the House. But that is my ruling on this matter and unless the member was trying to raise a new point of order and I mean a really new point of order the matter is closed.
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Question No. 4 to Minister—Minister Answering  
Brownlee Gerry: Points of Order — Question No. 4 to Minister—Minister Answering  
[Volume:619;Page:14718] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Just before we start I would like you to consider the matter of question No. 4. When the question was lodged this morning it was addressed to the Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment when the first sheet was produced by the Clerk’s Office the question was still addressed to the Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment and it was changed some time later. 
If you look at the content of that question you will see that it deals in particular with the actions of the Associate Minister and not of the Minister himself. I call your attention to Speaker’s ruling 129/4 which states: “The Minister primarily concerned is presumed to be the person to decide whether it is a question related to that portfolio or whether it is misdirected.” That leads to the question as to whether the Associate Minister in this case has seen a question on the sheet about the actions that she is alleged to have taken and decided that it was inappropriate for her to answer the question and therefore requested that it be transferred. 
We get to a little bit of a ridiculous situation where we are expected to accept that although at the time the Associate Minister was acting as the Minister the Minister should answer the questions for the actions that she took as the Acting Minister and although she is the Associate Minister the Minister who was on leave at the time and cannot possibly know about these matters is required to answer the question. That seems to be somewhat abusive of the process.
Brownlee Gerry: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
Brownlee Gerry: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
[Volume:627;Page:22220] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. What is “that course of action”? 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Does the member wish to change the vote which is as I understand it and correct me if I am wrong Vote Treaty Negotiations?
Pettis Jill: Social Security (Long-term Residential Care) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Pettis Jill: Social Security (Long-term Residential Care) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17360] 
JILL PETTIS (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Donnelly Brian: Minimum Wage Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Donnelly Brian: Minimum Wage Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:608;Page:5153] 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
: 
 I must take issue with one of the comments the Minister made about how this Government has created a new apprenticeship system. As the Minister well knows the training and qualifications of people under the Modern Apprenticeships scheme are exactly the same as under the Industry Training Act. There is no difference whatsoever. Nevertheless that is not what I am here to talk about. I came down to the Chamber to take a call because having listened to some of the speeches made in the debate on the first two clauses it is pretty obvious that people are not very clear what this bill actually does. In fact prior to this legislation there was an exemption. 
Richard Prebble claims that New Zealand First is economically illiterate. The theory he espouses has already been tried in 19th century Europe Britain and elsewhere. The effects were clearly chronicled by Charles Dickens Benjamin Disraeli Elizabeth Gaskell and all of those sorts of people. Every responsible Government should set minimum standards against the exploitation of workers and National recognises that. The National Government set a minimum wage and had it all through the 1990s. However there was a loophole that affected people on training agreements. I am not talking about training such as Mr Tisch provided for his workers but about formal training agreements under industry training organisations. Under those agreements there was no minimum wage but the record shows that most employers did not exploit their workers under those circumstances. They paid them minimum wages or even more. But a small proportion of employers did exploit their workers and was no protection for them in that circumstance. This bill provides that protection. It is not for 16 and 17-year-olds; it is for all people who are in training agreements and aiming for 60 or more credits. 
I see Jill Pettis making funny gesticulations across the Chamber. It is probably better that she uses sign language than yells out so I am quite happy for her to do that. The point is that this bill clearly recognises that there is a cost to employers in allowing people off for that training. They are therefore not required to pay the minimum wage they would pay to an adult. They are required to pay a lesser minimum wage in recognition of the fact that there is a training component in the employment they offer. However there is at least a minimum rate to ensure that workers are not exploited. A small number of employers had been doing that in the absence of any mechanism to ensure that it did not happen. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Name one! 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY 
: There was plenty of information about it but once again I say that it was the exception rather than the rule. New Zealand First agrees with this measure because it at least provides minimum protection for those who are caught in that loophole.
Franks Stephen: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Franks Stephen: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:623;Page:18758] 
12.  
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
 to the  
Minister of Police 
: Are there any policy statements requiring the police to enforce traffic law without discrimination on the basis of race culture or religion; if not why not? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Minister of Police) 
: 
 Yes. 
Stephen Franks 
: What use for police identification purposes are driver’s licence photos with faces shrouded by burkas when Land Transport New Zealand has admitted in writing that Muslim women have been allowed to refuse to remove their burkas for their licence photos? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: The information I have is that such photos can be taken by arrangement where a female staff member is involved and the face is able to be seen. 
Gerrard Eckhoff 
: What has the Minister done to reduce the risk of Mongrel Mob members certifying their feelings for their balaclavas so they can wear them for their licence photos as well as while they are on the job? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: Clause 12 of the Land Transport (Drivers Licensing) Rule 1999 requires that when licence applicants are being photographed for a licence they must not wear sunglasses a hat any head coverings or anything else that may obscure the applicant’s face or prevent the photographic image from being a good likeness. 
Stephen Franks 
: Does the Minister deny the advice in writing from Mr Peter Kippenberger now of Land Transport New Zealand that: “The number of photo driver licences issued to applicants wearing burkas is very low.” and do I take it from his earlier answer that he says that is not happening? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: It is my understanding that Land Transport New Zealand previously the Land Transport Safety Authority does not collect that information. 
Kenneth Wang 
: Have I understood the Minister correctly that if I cover my face for a driver’s licence photograph it is OK provided I sign a declaration that I have a religious objection to being photographed; if so has the Minister ever heard the expression: “When in Rome do as the Romans do.”? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: No.
Fairbrother Russell: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Fairbrother Russell: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:621;Page:16520] 
5.  
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour—Napier) 
 to the  
Minister of Energy 
: What is the Government doing to promote vehicle fuel efficiency? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Energy) 
: 
 The Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority is this week promoting vehicle fuel efficiency through its EnergyWise Rally. Some of our top rally drivers are competing to illustrate how driving techniques can save a lot of money. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: How much is “a lot”? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Around 20 percent at little or no cost through things like tyre pressure or engine tuning as well as driving style. But on top of that a bunch of new technologies are on trial—biofuelled cars hybrids and high-efficiency turbo diesels. 
Peter Brown 
: Is the Minister aware that his Government at one time promoted greater use of compressed natural gas (CNG) as a fuel that favoured fuel efficiency and environmental friendliness; if so can he tell us what he personally is doing to encourage its use my noting that garages selling it are closing down and that in Tauranga there are none where people can buy it? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: CNG was promoted primarily during the Muldoon Government. It did not seem to work very well. Its use has been on the decline for 20 years. On the other hand the use of liquefied petroleum gas is on the increase as is the use of a range of other fuels. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: What other steps is the Government in partnership with the Greens taking to improve fuel efficiency and reduce vehicle emissions and when does he expect the first programmes to be introduced? [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member knows he cannot do that. Because I previously was generous I will be generous on this occasion. The member will stand withdraw and apologise for making an interjection when he should not have. 
Hon David Carter 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: As the member knows vehicle emissions testing began in September this year managed by my colleague the Hon Judith Tizard. The member may also know of moves to phase in the introduction of substantially cleaner fuels between this year and 2006.
Vote: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4) — In Committee 
Vote: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 4) — In Committee 
[Volume:619;Page:14561] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 74 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 44 
New Zealand National 27; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Motion agreed to.
Worth Richard: War Pensions Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
Worth Richard: War Pensions Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
[Volume:607;Page:4527] 
RICHARD WORTH (NZ National—Epsom) 
: 
 Clause 2 is concerned with the commencement of this legislation and provides that the Act comes into force on the day after the date on which it receives the royal assent. In supporting that particular provision I would note that there has been a significantly delayed legislative history in respect of this bill which does the Government no credit. The interests of war veterans are important. We have a situation here where the bill was introduced on 12 December 2001. It was read a first time on 2 May 2002 and referred to the Social Services Committee. It has taken all this time—and it is not a complicated bill—to come back to the Committee for this stage. That is lamentable. I support the commencement date but do so in the context of significant delays by an uncaring Government.
Tisch Lindsay: Education (Establishment of Universities) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Tisch Lindsay: Education (Establishment of Universities) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:620;Page:16212] 
LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. When you called no one voted for that motion. I voted against it on behalf of members over here on the Opposition benches. Government members did not vote. When you called “those in favour” there was no response from Government members. I voted against the motion so the motion is lost.
Tizard Judith: Auckland War Memorial Museum Site Empowering Bill — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Tizard Judith: Auckland War Memorial Museum Site Empowering Bill — Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:611;Page:8370] 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD (NZ Labour—Auckland Central) 
: 
 I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Auckland War Memorial Museum Site Empowering Bill that it take the bill part by part and consider any schedules as one question. 
Motion agreed to.
Ririnui Mita: Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Bill — Procedure In Committee 
Ririnui Mita: Te Runanga o Ngati Awa Bill — Procedure In Committee 
[Volume:623;Page:18921] 
Hon MITA RIRINUI (Associate Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 I stand to say again: yes it is. 
Preamble clauses 1 to 14 and schedule agreed to. 
Bill reported without amendment.
Brash Don: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Brash Don: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 19 June 2003. Volume:609;Page:6425. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
7.  
Dr DON BRASH (NZ National) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Has the impact of inflation over the last 4 years led to New Zealanders paying a higher proportion of their personal income in tax; if so will he consider lowering overall personal income tax rates to compensate taxpayers? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 There has been a modest amount of bracket creep. The Government’s priorities with regard to taxes are outlined in the Budget speech and it should be noted that officials advised against indexation. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Given that the proportion of taxpayers who pay the top personal income tax rate of 39 percent is now double what he promised when lifting the top rate from 33 percent to 39 percent and the proportion of full-time workers paying the top personal tax rate is nearly 20 percent why will he not lower the top tax rate or increase the top personal tax threshold? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I accept the tribute to the success of this Government in raising the levels of incomes within New Zealand but the priorities will be assisting low to middle income families not those on the highest tax rates. 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: Why did officials advise against inflation-proofing the tax scale? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: On the grounds that it would be imprudent to commit to expensive mechanistic and ongoing adjustments to the tax scale when the size of future fiscal surpluses was not clear. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Has the Minister received any correspondence from United Future on the very same ground covered in the original question; if so when? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Yes indeed. As early as mid-February of this year I received approaches from the member on behalf of United Future in that respect. We had fruitful discussions and no doubt those will continue in the build-up to the next Budget. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Given that the Minister’s Government has now introduced over 15 increases to levies excises and fees since 1999 and that he himself has said that these are the same as tax increases why does he not acknowledge that his 1999 pledge to increase personal income tax for only 5 percent of taxpayers was totally misleading to the public? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: At the time that statement was made it was actually true but thanks to this Government the number of people on higher incomes has increased significantly—contrary to the forecast made by that member’s party in 1999.
Hutchison Paul: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Hutchison Paul: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:622;Page:17683] 
11.  
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
 to the  
Minister of Corrections 
: Does he still stand by his comment “I consider the $1.3 million figure to be excessive” with regard to consultation costs for Spring Hill prison and does he consider there to be any further excessive spending on this project? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 Yes and no. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: Does the Minister think that taxpayers will be pleased or outraged when they discover that his figure of June 2004 was that earthworks and services for Spring Hill would cost approximately $28 million but by November the estimated cost had increased to $38.8 million—a massive $10.8 million increase in 5 months? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: Firstly those figures are estimates as the member will well know—[ 
Interruption 
] Calm down Hopoate. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Interjections can get out of hand but on that occasion the Minister knows that what he said was out of order. He will stand withdraw and apologise. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Now please answer the question and no more. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: The member will also know that given the current performance of the Government and the fabulous economy that we are now experiencing there is pressure in the economy everywhere. Construction is booming and costs are rising for diesel and labour as a result. Therefore there are some changes in estimated costs. But the member will also know that this goes back to the Budget process. All the figures are available. I welcome him to come to my office. I will provide the officials and give him a full briefing on the whole matter so he can get up to speed on the whole issue. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: Does the Minister agree that buying land for a prison near Meremere for $2.3 million then discovering that it was necessary to spend about $38.8 million on earthmoving due to the original site being suitable when there were 46 sites to choose from is a gross waste of taxpayers’ money; if not why not? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: No because an exhaustive process went on in looking for the right site. I am not an engineer but the member should know that any construction such as this requires earthworks. Part of the reason actually is to make sure that any visible pollution which that member opposed right from the start is able to be minimised. So this is good value for money. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: How does he think the elderly distraught with news that The Salvation Army is exiting their nursing homes due to Government policy will feel when they discover the cost per bed at Spring Hill prison will be $384000 compared with the cost per nursing home bed which is on average $90000—a quarter the cost of a prison bed? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: I think those people will appreciate that this Government is tough on crime and has had to build more prisons and more prison beds after 9 years of total limp-wristed inactivity from the National Government.
Responses — Mr Frank Alefounder—Statements Made By Larry Baldock MP 
Responses — Mr Frank Alefounder—Statements Made By Larry Baldock MP 
[Volume:620;Page:15785] 
Tuesday 5 October 2004 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Responses 
Mr Frank Alefounder—Statements Made By Larry Baldock MP 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I hereby present a response under Standing Orders 160 to 163 on the application of Mr Frank Alefounder relating to statements made by Larry Baldock MP on 5 May 2004. 
Hon MARK BURTON (Acting Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That that paper be published 
. 
Motion agreed to.
Prebble Richard: Points of Order — Ministerial Statements 
Prebble Richard: Points of Order — Ministerial Statements 
[Volume:609;Page:6698] 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I apologise to the member for raising a point of order but I do so on a matter that is very important. Standing Order 341 “Ministerial statements” states that a matter of significant public importance can be brought to the House’s attention immediately by a Minister. I have been asked to go to a meeting at 4 p.m. and I now find from the media that the Government has put out a major statement today stating that our whole basis for immigration has been altered—we have gone from a points system to a skills-based system—and that MPs will be briefed at 4 p.m. Madam Speaker you understand exactly the significance of what the Government has done. It has decided to put out a statement too late for the asking of parliamentary questions and will then allow us to go into urgency. Our immigration policy has been turned on its head and the media has been told about it yet we members of Parliament get a briefing after the media. 
I want to draw to your attention that Speakers in the British House of Commons—and this will make you a Speaker that the Opposition will like—have in the strongest terms condemned that sort of action by the Government. Speakers there have ruled that Ministers should make those announcements to the House first and then to the nation. Now we are in a situation whereby the Government puts out a statement that we cannot scrutinise and on which we cannot have any parliamentary discussion since we are all going into urgency. I want you to suggest that the proper thing for the Minister of Immigration to do is to come down to the House take a call under Standing Order 341 and important as this debate is interrupt it and let us know—as she has apparently been able to tell the media—that our immigration system has been turned on its head this afternoon.
Carter John: General Debates 
Carter John: General Debates 
[Volume:616;Page:11932] 
JOHN CARTER (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 Yes it is. I have asked you to consider whether given that we now have points of order being raised quite repeatedly in this House—quite often and more than is necessary on points that members know are not points of order—there is a matter that needs to be brought to the attention of the Standing Orders Committee. I wonder whether you could give a view on that or go away and give a view on it. I think there is an issue arising from that and if you are not prepared to raise it then maybe I will raise it myself with the Standing Orders Committee in my capacity as a member of the House.
Vote: Racing Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Vote: Racing Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:606;Page:3974] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 6 
ACT New Zealand 6. 
Noes 110 
Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Papers 16 and 62 in the name of the Hon Annette King be agreed to.
Hunt Jonathan: Standing Orders 
Hunt Jonathan: Standing Orders 
[Volume:614;Page:10735] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No I am not. I am saying that there has been a maximum of two speakers from the major parties and one speaker from each of the minor parties. There has not been a change to that in recent times. The question is— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.
Vote: Customs and Excise (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Customs and Excise (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:608;Page:5389] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 68 
Noes 46 
Motion agreed to. 
Labour 52; Green Party 7; United Future 7; Progressive 2. 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6.
Benson-Pope David: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
Benson-Pope David: Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8077] 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (Senior Whip—NZ Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Smith Lockwood: Motions — Polish Children—60th Anniversary 
Smith Lockwood: Motions — Polish Children—60th Anniversary 
[Volume:621;Page:16781] 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
: 
 National is pleased to associate itself with this motion. The story of those children and their subsequent contribution to New Zealand is truly inspiring. The history of the Nazi invasion of Poland in September 1939 is well known as is the horror of the Second World War that it unleashed. But what is less well understood is what those catastrophic events did to the lives of ordinary families and innocent children living in Poland at the time. It is hard to imagine the hardship and suffering they had to endure with fathers deported to prison camps in northern Siberia where so many died; and women and children deported to labour camps elsewhere in Siberia which was so harsh and cruel that by the time those 733 children arrived in New Zealand 425 of them were orphans. Yet 11 years later many had passed School Certificate many more were apprentices some had passed university entrance and were nurses and teachers and a few had even graduated from university. To the New Zealand families descended from those Polish refugees today including the family of our own deputy leader Gerry Brownlee I say that their families’ triumph over cruelty and disaster is an inspiration to us all and we salute them.
Benson-Pope David: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Stockholm Convention) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Benson-Pope David: Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Stockholm Convention) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:6941] 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (NZ Labour—Dunedin South) 
: I am pleased to support this legislation and I commend it to the House.
te Heuheu Georgina: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
te Heuheu Georgina: Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:623;Page:18735] 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Kaore nga kupu “te runanga” i roto i tenei pire mo nga kupu o te Minita. 
[ 
In respect of the Minister’s statement the words “te runanga” are not in this bill. 
] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Would the member for my benefit and that of the Committee please give the English interpretation?
Hereora Dave: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Hereora Dave: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:614;Page:10583] 
9.  
DAVE HEREORA (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for ACC 
: What decisions have been made on the new ACC levy rates this year? 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for ACC) 
: 
 Excellent news for everyone particularly for motorists and the self-employed: the average total levy for motor vehicles including licensing fees and petrol excise duty will fall by 6.8 percent. The average total self-employed levy will drop by 2.2 percent while the total employers levy and the total earners levy will stay unchanged. 
Dave Hereora 
: How do the new accident compensation levy rates compare with overseas rates? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Extraordinarily favourably. For example in Australia average employer premium rates over the last 2 to 3 years range from A$1.55 to A$3.04 per A$100 payroll compared with the accident compensation total employers’ levy of A$1.21. Despite Australia’s relatively high rates its private insurance schemes have struggled to survive. Two major insurers have collapsed including HIH which was a major player under National’s privatised accident compensation scheme. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That is a very misleading statement by the Minister and inappropriate in the answer. The reality is that not one New Zealand accident compensation claimant was affected by that failure. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member knows that that is not a point of order.