edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Yates Dianne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Yates Dianne: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:611;Page:8670] 
12.  
DIANNE YATES (NZ Labour—Hamilton East) 
 to the  
Minister of Customs 
: How is the Customs Service preparing to deal with any increase in passengers at Auckland International Airport this summer? 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister of Customs) 
: 
 The good news is that arrivals from overseas are already ahead of an all-time high and are expected to go higher. The 36 percent increase in capacity at Auckland with new airlines into New Zealand such as the Emirates Airlines and Royal Brunei Airlines will put considerable pressure on customs and other border agencies. The service is working with other agencies airlines and airports to make adjustments to flight schedules staff layout and other procedural changes to help minimise delays. It will be a very busy summer holiday. 
Dianne Yates 
: With this influx of passengers at Auckland International Airport will customs be able to maintain border control and protect New Zealanders from terrorism and the smuggling of illegal drugs and other prohibited goods? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: New Zealanders can be assured that customs is and will continue to be vigilant in maintaining border security. All inbound and outbound air passengers pass through customs control. Current matching of information with other countries border control agencies and profiling techniques ensure that people who smuggle drugs and contraband are more likely to be intercepted than ever before. If members have any doubts they should see page 2 of the  
Contraband 
 newspaper put out by customs which shows that seven people convicted in recent months of importing drugs into New Zealand received extensive jail terms of up to 12 years. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Why does the New Zealand passenger arrival form not require visitors to this country to disclose criminal records? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: I cannot answer that question off the top of my head but I will certainly get an answer for the member. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This is extraordinary. This form has recently been reprinted. I am quite certain that the Minister would be aware that there has been an error and that that particular question has been left off some half a million of these forms to accommodate the vast numbers who are coming into the country. For him to say that he is unaware of it and that he will get back to us later is quite frankly just skirting the scrutiny of the House. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister gave an answer to the question.
Duncan Helen: Employment Relations (Flexible Working Hours) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Duncan Helen: Employment Relations (Flexible Working Hours) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:624;Page:19674] 
HELEN DUNCAN (Labour) 
: 
 I am pleased to stand and support this bill. The Government is proud to be a family-friendly Government and it is therefore happy to support this bill going to the select committee. The ideas in it seem good and should be subject to public scrutiny. Then we can see whether we need to go forward with it. 
The previous speaker demonstrated yet again his utter contempt for the working people of New Zealand. At least today he did not repeat his scurrilous comments about the teachers and nurses of this country. But it is quite clear that he has no sympathy whatsoever for the hard-working families of New Zealand who are trying to juggle the commitments of their working lives and balance that with giving real support to their children in their educational and recreational activities. 
As I said this Government—unlike the Government of the previous speaker—is a family-friendly Government. We have made huge commitments to families. Since we introduced the paid parental leave scheme in 2002 we have increased the entitlements each year and from the end of this year eligible parents will get 14 weeks’ paid parental leave. I know that Sue Kedgley supports those measures. The Working for Families package is designed to reduce the barriers to work and to ensure that people are better off working. It also ensures that families are able to give their children the best possible start in life. The Working for Families package does make a huge difference to the lives of a great many New Zealand families. Of course from 2007 there will be 4 weeks’ holiday for all working people and that is another thing that will make a difference to family life. We have put fairer sickness and bereavement leave provisions into our industrial relations legislation as well. It makes a huge difference to families in times of stress just to have the right to a decent amount of leave. We have put in place fairer public holiday rates so that people who work a public holiday while everyone else is off on holiday at least get a little bit extra to compensate them for that work. What we have done is all about restoring the fairness for working people that was taken away under the 9 years of National Government in the 1990s. We are committed to affordable quality childcare to enable parents who wish to work to do so knowing that their children have good-quality childcare. Those things we have done. 
However we are still quite prepared to look at Sue Kedgley’s bill and if there is a lot of support for it from the public at large then we can support it through. It looks like a good idea and we are prepared to give it a go.
Tisch Lindsay: Supreme Court Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Tisch Lindsay: Supreme Court Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:612;Page:9025] 
LINDSAY TISCH (Junior Whip—NZ National) 
: 
 I seek leave that the amendments to clauses 2 and 3 set out on the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper 151 be taken separately.
Hunt Jonathan: Speaker’s Rulings — Donna Awatere Huata 
Hunt Jonathan: Speaker’s Rulings — Donna Awatere Huata 
[Volume:613;Page:9837] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Under Standing Order 35(1)(c) I have been advised by the acting leader of the ACT party that ACT’s parliamentary membership has changed and that Donna Awatere Huata is no longer a member of ACT for parliamentary purposes. Accordingly under Standing Order 34(3) Donna Awatere Huata is from 11 November 2003 regarded as an Independent member for parliamentary purposes. 
At this point at least no question of the member’s seat becoming vacant under the provisions of the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Act 2001 arises. That Act sets out certain conditions and procedures under which a member can be expelled from the political party for which he or she was elected. The acting leader of ACT has indicated an intention to invoke that legislation. Whether that is possible is a matter that does not arise at this time. 
ACT now has eight members of Parliament. I will therefore consult with the Green and ACT parties about the seating to be occupied by them in the Chamber. The Business Committee will need to reconsider the allocation of questions. I will reconsider the allocation of first and second reading and general debate speaking slots. I expect these matters to be settled by the end of this week. In the meantime the present allocations will continue to run though the Green Party now the third largest in the House will be called ahead of ACT to vote and to speak in debate. Allocations of funding to ACT and to Donna Awatere Huata will need to be readjusted to reflect the new party balances. This is a matter that I will attend to on advice from the Parliamentary Service Commission.
Peck Mark: Customs and Excise (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
Peck Mark: Customs and Excise (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:608;Page:5453] 
MARK PECK (NZ Labour—Invercargill) 
: 
 I support this bill.
Franks Stephen: Television New Zealand Bill — In Committee 
Franks Stephen: Television New Zealand Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:606;Page:3808] 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. At the beginning of the debate today on this part the Minister indicated that he would answer questions. He invited our questions and said they would be taken seriously. I ask before we are called upon to vote that the Minister be invited to address the questions that I put in good faith. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: It is entirely up to the Minister whether he takes a call. He has taken two calls and perhaps the next part Part 4 has greater reference to the Minister than Part 3.
Vote: Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:625;Page:20257] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 111 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 9 
ACT New Zealand 9. 
Amendment agreed to.
Maharey Steve: Government Communications Security Bureau Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH 
Maharey Steve: Government Communications Security Bureau Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH 
[Volume:607;Page:4360] 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Social Services and Employment) 
 on behalf of the 
 Prime Minister 
: I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Government Communications Security Bureau 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.
Carter John: Corrections Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Carter John: Corrections Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:617;Page:13157] 
JOHN CARTER (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 Indeed Mr Speaker and can I make a helpful suggestion. I think this is important because otherwise we may well have this matter relitigated time and time again. The problem is that while proportionality is only one factor under Standing Order 102—and I accept that you Mr Speaker were present at the debate on this whole issue—it seems to me that it might be useful if at some stage we could have a considered ruling on this. I did ask for a considered ruling to be given but the Chairperson did not comment on that part of my point of order. I ask that you now give a considered ruling. What might be useful is some sort of guide as to how we are to deal with the issue of proportionality because there is no question that in the debate today we did get out of proportionality in terms of the parties that were seeking the call. I think it is important that we do the best we can to comply with the intent of the Standing Orders and I ask you to comment on that or give a ruling in due course. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am ready to rule. I do not think I need to hear any further comments. I refer members to Speaker’s ruling 58/8: “The [chairperson] is the sole judge as to whether or not he ought to sanction the putting of the closure motion …” and that of course is how the matter stands. On the matter that Mr Carter raised I too was at the Standing Orders Committee and I understood that the title debate was to be a short one where there would probably be two speakers from the leading Opposition party and one speaker from each of the other parties which is the usual going rate that I allow when motions are put from the Chair. If necessary I am happy to rule in that direction. However I understand the comment that was made on Tuesday and I think the Deputy Chair Mrs Hartley was pretty generous in extending the debate in that regard but that was a promise that was given and it was allowed. As far as I am concerned the Chairperson is the sole judge of relevancy.
Benson-Pope David: Gambling Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Benson-Pope David: Gambling Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8482] 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (Senior Whip—NZ Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Pettis Jill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Pettis Jill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:613;Page:10233] 
8.  
JILL PETTIS (Labour—Whanganui) 
 to the  
Minister of Commerce 
: What steps if any is the Government taking to deal with the problems arising from inadequate maintenance of apartments under the Unit Titles Act 1972 as identified in the Auckland Regional Council’s  
Bodies Corporate & Intensive Housing in Auckland 
 report? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Commerce) 
: 
 The report confirms that the 1972 Act which deals with the subdivision of land into units is now out of date. Not surprisingly it was called the “Flats Act” I think by way of reference when it passed through the House. It is now out of date and it is not capable of meeting the needs of residents of large modern apartment developments. The Ministry of Economic Development is now working with the Ministry of Justice to review that Act and I hope to have amending legislation introduced into the House next year. 
Jill Pettis 
: What problems did the Auckland Regional Council identify in its report which the Government intends to respond to? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: The Auckland Regional Council report identified a range of problems concerned with the way bodies corporate are required to operate under the current legislation. In particular the report found that that was leading to practical difficulties in getting agreement to the ongoing maintenance and effective management of those developments.
Alexander Marc: Police Complaints Authority (Conditional Name Protection) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Alexander Marc: Police Complaints Authority (Conditional Name Protection) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:618;Page:13883] 
MARC ALEXANDER (United Future) 
: 
 I wish to take a call on behalf of United Future to make a few comments on the Police Complaints Authority (Conditional Name Protection) Amendment Bill in the name of Dr Paul Hutchison and I thank him for bringing this very important issue to light. Although I understand that the bill will be discharged I think it has achieved quite a number of goals and I thank Paul Hutchison for that. 
The first goal of course is that when we ask the police to do the job on our behalf to protect us and support the law very often they are put in the firing line. In this particular case the public identification of Constable Abbott did a huge disservice to him and to his family as well. The media convention not to name police was very definitely broken in that instance. 
The only reasonable response to that is to turn the media convention into enforceable legislation. It would have been regrettable to have to do that because the ability for the media to scrutinise is a right that we all must uphold and value. If nothing else what Dr Paul Hutchison’s amendment bill sought to do and in fact did was clarify that convention. From now on there will not be a newspaper in this country that has not been put on notice. If newspapers flaunt the convention there will be a legislative response. 
For that alone credit must be given to Paul Hutchison for putting this bill forward. I thank him and the other members of the Law and Order Committee for looking into this amendment bill and for getting a very good result at the end of the day. 
Motion not agreed to.
Benson-Pope David: Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Bill — In Committee 
Benson-Pope David: Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8696] 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (Senior Whip—NZ Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Tizard Judith: Auckland War Memorial Museum Site Empowering Bill — First Reading 
Tizard Judith: Auckland War Memorial Museum Site Empowering Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:6585] 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD (NZ Labour—Auckland Central) 
: 
 I want to thank all parties in the House and all the members who have spoken for their unanimous support for the institution that is the Auckland War Memorial Museum and for its redevelopment plans. I recognise that the museum is both architecturally and spiritually important to all Aucklanders and to all New Zealanders. I agree that it is also of deep significance to people further north and to many people around the country and that it has a particular role as a treasure house and a house of learning for Maori. The role of the Auckland Museum Institute over many years has meant that it is also a research institution of great respect and width and I thank Keith Locke and Mike Ward for their comments about that research and education role. I assure them that transport planning is a major aspect of the new redevelopment project and that all the comments they have raised have been taken into account and will be considered by the select committee and the Auckland Museum Trust Board as the redevelopment is planned. 
I particularly want to thank Bernie Ogilvy and United Future. I agree with them that there has never been an important project that did not have controversy. However I believe the trust board has done a good job of balancing all those concerns—of recognising the spiritual and sacred value of this museum as a war memorial as well as providing for all the other needs a museum must provide for. I thank all members of the House and I look forward to the speedy consideration of this bill in the Government Administration Committee. 
Bill read a first time. 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD (NZ Labour—Auckland Central) 
: 
 I seek leave for the Auckland War Memorial Museum Site Empowering Bill to be referred to the Government Administration Committee notwithstanding Standing Order 282 and that it be an instruction to the committee that it report the bill by 15 August 2003. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to move that motion. Is there any disagreement. There is not. The motion is considered moved. 
By leave Auckland War Memorial Museum Site Empowering Bill referred to the Government Administration Committee.
Vote: Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Resource Management (Waitaki Catchment) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:619;Page:15355] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 46 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Dr Nick Smith to insert new clause 19A be agreed to: 
19A 
(1)The Board must allocate the available water identified under this Act among the present and future categories of competing activities. 
(2)The Board in making an allocation under section 14AAC of this Act must take into account the allocations provided for in the 1969 Order in Council for irrigation and commitments made to the community by the Crown at the time of the Upper Waitaki Hydro Development.
Peck Mark: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Peck Mark: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:619;Page:15025] 
11.  
MARK PECK (Labour—Invercargill) 
 to the  
Minister for Small Business 
: What recent reports has he received from the Small Business Advisory Group? 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE (Minister for Small Business) 
: 
 This morning the Small Business Advisory Group released its first annual report. Drawing on the members’ experience as small-business owners and advisers and information provided by business people at the series of 24 regional small-business days the advisory group has provided the Government with recommendations that it believes could genuinely enhance small-business growth in New Zealand. 
Mark Peck 
: Does the Minister see this report as an important contribution to small-business development in New Zealand? 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: Absolutely. This Government is committed to engaging directly with the engine room of this economy. We do not presume that we or the self-appointed lobbyists know best. That is why we have engaged in such an open transparent manner with the sector. 
Lindsay Tisch 
: Is the Minister “up for it” to measure and publish the accumulative costs of compliance with regulations passed by this Government in the last 6 months as recommended by the Small Business Advisory Group given his press statement: “I will be proud to take this report to my Cabinet colleagues and to enlist their support for its recommendations”; if not why not? 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: I am delighted to have received 19 very good recommendations from the Small Business Advisory Group. It has given me 12 months to report back to it and there is a wide range of work going on to achieve that. 
Peter Brown 
: Is the Minister aware of any other reports informal or otherwise that affect small business that illustrate its concerns about aspects of the Holidays Act for example and its downright nervousness of the Employment Relations Amendment Bill; if he is aware of such reports what does he intend to do about them? 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: I am not aware of such reports.
Adams Paul: Rodney District Council (PENLINK Toll Road) Empowering Bill — Second Reading 
Adams Paul: Rodney District Council (PENLINK Toll Road) Empowering Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:614;Page:10411] 
PAUL ADAMS (United Future) 
: 
 As one who lives in the North Shore area and has lived at the end of the Whangaparaoa Peninsula for a number of years I would rise in support of Lockwood Smith on his bill but he has been telling the people of Rodney to listen to what Labour has to say about this bill. But United Future has come along and thanks to the hardworking efforts of our MP Larry Baldock in the transport area the Land Transport Management Bill has now been passed. That legislation makes way for that bridge—which is much needed in the Rodney area—from the Whangaparaoa Peninsula across to Redvale. So we will not be supporting this bill because we have already supported legislation that has done the job this bill intends to do. The people of Rodney can rest assured. I do not know how long Lockwood Smith has been in this House but United Future has been here for 18 months and the job is done. The bridge can be built; it is all under way.
Shirley Ken: Government Superannuation Fund Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading 
Shirley Ken: Government Superannuation Fund Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading 
[Volume:606;Page:3721] 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 ACT New Zealand certainly supports this bill. It also welcomes its speedy passage. In the light of the speeches that we have had from all the parties thus far the Minister who began the debate on this bill today really cannot get away with what she said. I heard her comment; she said that the bill had been held up by the heavy legislative programme of the Government. This bill is very simple and very clear. Its purpose is to remove an inequity that has been on the statute book. It was I think probably introduced inadvertently in 1985 but this Government has been in office for over 3 years and it has had ample opportunity to address this situation. It has been languishing at the bottom of the Order Paper. The Minister had the temerity to come to the House and say that the busy legislative programme had been the reason that the bill had been delayed. I can only assume that she was being sarcastic. I do not think she was sincere in saying that. Perhaps it was her little joke with the House because it is one big joke. 
When we look at the nonsense legislation that this Government has passed in its last term and continues to pass in this term—things like the renationalisation of accident compensation doing away with the Employment Contracts Act the Local Government Act and to increase taxation—all of those measures destroy the fundamentals of the New Zealand economy. The Minister says that those bad policies that the Government was just so keen to take the time of this House to legislate for had priority over a very simple measure to remove the inequities between widows and widowers in this bill that we now have before the House.  
We heard Rod Donald try to blame the ACT party for the delay. That is rather comical because we wholeheartedly support this measure. We cannot understand why it was not introduced 3 years ago. The inequity has been there for a considerable length of time. This Government stands condemned for the time that it has taken to address this very important measure. I do not propose to take any more of the House’s time other than to reconfirm ACT’s commitment to support the removal of this inequity.
Wong Pansy: Sale of Liquor Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
Wong Pansy: Sale of Liquor Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
[Volume:613;Page:10135] 
PANSY WONG (National) 
: 
 The Minister has given us once-over-lightly the difference between the Sale of Liquor Amendment Bill (No 3) and the Sale of Liquor Amendment Bill (No 2). I was on the Commerce Committee that heard submissions on the Sale of Liquor Amendment Bill (No 3). Indeed there is a very significant difference between the Sale of Liquor Amendment Bill (No 3) and the Sale of Liquor Amendment Bill (No 2). In the Sale of Liquor Amendment Bill (No 3) one of the major provisions was to remove the exclusive trading rights of the seven licensing trusts. At that stage members of the Commerce Committee heard extensive submissions from people who argued whether the monopoly trading rights enjoyed by the seven licensing trusts should continue and because of that the report back for that bill clearly stated that the committee could not agree that the bill be passed as amended. 
I cannot see how the Minister can try to mislead the House and also the public by saying that the Sale of Liquor Amendment Bill (No 2) is substantially the same as the Sale of Liquor Amendment Bill (No 3). If this bill gets past the first reading the Commerce Committee should revisit the submission process. The hearings that the committee originally heard are on a very different aspect of that legislation. 
The reason the committee was split was that the original bill included the term of removing the monopoly right and that was upon the recommendation of the 1997 report of the Alcoholic Liquor Advisory Council. It said that maintaining monopoly trading rights of the licensing trusts does not actually contribute to the purpose of the Sale of Liquor Act which is to establish a reasonable system of control over the sale and supply of liquor to the public with the aim of contributing to the reduction of liquor abuse. 
Jill Pettis 
: This is a good impromptu speech from Pansy Wong. 
PANSY WONG 
: If the junior whip kept quiet she might learn something instead of babbling away as she always does. It seems to me that in his introduction speech the Minister has given a very misleading impression of the relationship of the Sale of Liquor Amendment Bill (No 3) being likened to the current Sale of Liquor Amendment Bill (No 2). We intend to draw that to the attention of the public. 
Debate interrupted.
Vote: New Zealand Trade and Enterprise Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Vote: New Zealand Trade and Enterprise Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6305] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Noes 71 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 12 be agreed to: 
to add the following subclause: 
(4)Notwithstanding anything in this section NZTE may not act against prudent financial management or business practices.
Voting — Correction 
Voting — Correction 
[Volume:617;Page:13165] 
Voting 
Correction 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave was given for the ACT vote on the second reading of the Social Security (Child Benefit) Amendment Bill to be amended from 7 votes against to 6 votes against. The amended result of the vote is Ayes 30 Noes 80.
Robertson H V Ross: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
Robertson H V Ross: Fisheries Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee 
[Volume:619;Page:15194] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: There is no debate on the schedules at this stage as a result of the new Standing Orders that came into effect recently; the schedules are debated during the debate on the parts of the bill. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 246 in the name of the Hon David Benson-Pope to schedule 1 be agreed to.
Vote: Children’s Commissioner Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Children’s Commissioner Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:613;Page:9898] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to.  
Ayes 82 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 34 
New Zealand National 25; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendments agreed to.
Hunt Jonathan: Speaker’s Rulings — Replies to Written Questions—Signatures 
Hunt Jonathan: Speaker’s Rulings — Replies to Written Questions—Signatures 
[Volume:617;Page:12621] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I was asked yesterday to consider the propriety of a Minister approving a hard copy of a reply to a written question rather than affixing an electronic signature personally. The Standing Orders Committee when it first considered the system of electronic written questions in 2002 was concerned to ensure that members should take responsibility for questions that are lodged in their names. To this end the sessional orders agreed on 17 December 2002 required members and Ministers to sign questions and replies personally by way of an electronic signature. 
In practice this requirement caused difficulty. Both members and Ministers wished to be able to put in place systems whereby they could entrust a staff member with affixing the electronic signature to a question or reply on their behalf. Accordingly the Standing Orders Committee in its recent review unanimously decided to allow members and Ministers to delegate the electronic sign-off of questions and replies. Standing Order 366(3)(b) while requiring questions and replies to be signed no longer requires members to affix an electronic signature to a question or a reply personally. 
This change was made on the basis that the responsibility for the question or reply remains with the member. Any compromise of the integrity of the system that allowed a non-member to lodge a question or reply without the specific authorisation of the member or Minister would remain a contempt. But the way in which such authorisation is given is entirely a matter for each individual member or Minister. The Minister’s practice of authorising the affixing of an electronic signature by signing a hard copy of the reply is therefore perfectly proper.
Vote: Corrections Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Corrections Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:12997] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to the amendment to clause 6 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 213 in the name of the Hon Paul Swain be agreed to: 
to omit proposed new paragraph (ca) from subclause (1).
English Bill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
English Bill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:609;Page:6679] 
2.  
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she have confidence in her Associate Minister of Maori Affairs (Hon Tariana Turia); if so why? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) 
 on behalf of the 
 Prime Minister 
: Yes because she is a hard-working and conscientious Minister. 
Hon Bill English 
: How does the Prime Minster reconcile the statement made by Tariana Turia this morning on the radio: “Well we’re not even sure it’s going to go so far as being a bill in the House.” with the statement made by Dr Cullen just 4 days ago that the Government will introduce legislation extinguishing claims to customary title regarding the seabed and foreshore? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Because to my certain knowledge my colleague Dr Cullen has never said that legislation will be introduced extinguishing customary title to the “forebed and seashore”. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: With reference to chapter 3 of the  
Cabinet Office Manual 
 which states that Ministers whose opposition to a Cabinet decision is such that they will not publicly dissociate themselves from it must resign from Cabinet—and I emphasise “must”—does the Prime Minister not accept the principle of one law for all in Cabinet or for that matter one law for all across New Zealand? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I can assure the member that the Prime Minister accepts the rule of one law for all in Cabinet. What I can say is that as the member herself said there is a process under way which at this stage also includes a caucus committee of Ministers and the Maori caucus. That process will lead to certain conclusions. 
Hon Bill English 
: What has the Prime Minister said to the Hon Tariana Turia that has led her to make public statements that there may not be legislation in respect of the argument over the foreshore and the seabed? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Nothing.
Kelly Graham: Imports and Exports (Restrictions) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Kelly Graham: Imports and Exports (Restrictions) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6952] 
GRAHAM KELLY (NZ Labour) 
: I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Vote: Judicial Matters Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Vote: Judicial Matters Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:12883] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Noes 55 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8. 
Amendments agreed to.
Prebble Richard: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Prebble Richard: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:610;Page:7136] 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 Your ruling is definitely correct Mr Speaker but you have taken a narrow ruling. I would like you to publicly reaffirm also Speakers’ ruling 116/1 which states: “Ultimately the Speaker could refuse to permit a question to be transferred to another Minister for answer if the responsibility for a subject is so primarily held by a particular Minister as to mean that the transfer of the question would be an abuse.” I think it would be useful if you were to uphold that. I see that other Speakers—Speakers Gray and Tapsell—twice saw it necessary to do so but I think you could go one stage further and point out why it would be an abuse. Our Parliament is here to hold Ministers accountable and we cannot do that if the Prime Minister is putting forward a pattern of behaviour—and you can now see that three political parties in the House think she is—of not being accountable for matters that she clearly is primarily accountable for. I am not inviting you to change your ruling which is correct but having made that ruling against the Opposition to now make a ruling to the Government and say that it is unparliamentary for a Minister to transfer questions if he or she has primary responsibility for them. That is what the House expects Ministers to do—to answer for their own portfolios—and in the case of the Prime Minister to answer for Cabinet.
Vote: Films Videos and Publications Classification  Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Films Videos and Publications Classification  Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:623;Page:18638] 
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 56 
New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; Green Party 9. 
Motion agreed to.
Hide Rodney: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Hide Rodney: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:614;Page:10373] 
3.  
RODNEY HIDE (ACT) 
 to  
Steve Chadwick (Member in charge of Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill) 
: Is anyone liable for a fine under the Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill if an enforcement officer detects smoking in a bar or club; if so what is the maximum fine? 
STEVE CHADWICK (Member in charge of Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill): 
 Yes the licensee—that means the manager or the proprietor—is liable for a fine of up $4000 for a body corporate if it is proven that he or she did not take all reasonable and practicable steps to ensure that no one smoked in the premises. 
Rodney Hide 
: Once the bill comes into force what does the member suggest that the publican in say Wairoa does in response to gang members lighting up in his or her pub knowing that it is the publican who is liable for the fine not the gang members who are lighting up the smoke? 
STEVE CHADWICK 
: If the publican can demonstrate that he or she has undertaken all reasonable and practicable steps no fine will be issued. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Have I got this right—anybody can go into a pub after this bill is passed pull out a packet of cigarettes and say to the owner: “If you don’t give me free drinks I’m going to light up and you’re going to get fined” and what is just about that? 
STEVE CHADWICK 
: This is a public health bill. Individual provisions of enforcement never apply in public health legislation and it will be the will of the 75 percent of New Zealanders who do not smoke to exert their influence over the smokers and ask them to have their cigarette outside.
Peck Mark: Films Videos and Publications Classification Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Peck Mark: Films Videos and Publications Classification Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:615;Page:11461] 
MARK PECK (Labour—Invercargill) 
: 
 This is a very good bill which will reform the law as far as it relates to the trade of child pornography over the Internet. It will increase 10 times the penalties for dealing with such material. For instance people who trade in child pornography now face up to 10 years in prison under this bill. It really strengthens the law in this respect. I support the bill.
Vote: Biosecurity Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Biosecurity Amendment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:7069] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 66 
Labour 52; Green Party 6; United Future 8. 
Noes 45 
New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7. 
Motion agreed to.
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers  
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers  
[Volume:615;Page:11003] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is not so much whether there is any verification for the suggestion; it is the inference that somehow tax cuts are paid for. That I would have thought would rule it out in the first place. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is why I will have a look at it and I will come back to it.
Pettis Jill: Crown Minerals Amendment Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Pettis Jill: Crown Minerals Amendment Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:610;Page:7619] 
JILL PETTIS (Junior Whip—NZ Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:608;Page:5689] 
6.  
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Energy 
: Did the Prime Minister have any involvement in the preparation of current energy savings advertisements that run on television? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Energy) 
: 
 No. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Is he telling me that such a serious issue as a potential national crisis which requires substantial savings to be now made by New Zealand people and the expenditure of massive amounts of taxpayers’ funds on that purpose actually occurred without the Prime Minister having any idea whatsoever of what would be in those advertisements; if that is the case why is it fitting for her to go on morning television and criticise the content of the advertisements if she was so unconscious frivolous or careless as to have no involvement in the first place as Prime Minister? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The advertising campaign is being commissioned by the Winter Power Task Force under the supervision of the Grid Security Committee. The origin of that is that I called in the industry some months ago now—I cannot remember the date—and said: “You will manage this.” and it has done so. 
Lynne Pillay 
: Why is the electricity industry commissioning and paying for the television advertisements this year when the Government commissioned and paid for them in 2001? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Because the industry got a very clear message from the Government earlier this year that it needed to take more responsibility for dealing with a very dry year than it did in 2001 when the campaign was led by the Government. I congratulate the industry on its actions to date. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Did he decide to have the power crisis managed by the Winter Power Task Force in order to have someone else to blame when things go wrong just as he has this afternoon? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: No. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: If other people are to be responsible as he phrased the answer when he said: “You will manage this.” then why on earth are we employing him and second does he think it is fitting for such a campaign to have the sorts of responses the Prime Minister gave when she said: “Fortunately I have gas for my hot water and for my heating so that puts me in a reasonable position.” or “I’m not a great TV watcher myself; I am not seeing them.” and does he think that he is doing any way a halfway competent job? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I am not sure which part of the question is best answered but the issue about who should manage this matter was discussed by the Government and the industry earlier this year. The long and short of it is that in 2001 the industry was not up to scratch. This year it most certainly is. The underlying reason it is being managed by the industry be it the contracts with Vector or any other aspect of the management is that under a previous Government the market system was set up and there was partial privatisation. Indeed the member who asked the question was the Treasurer at the time.
Pillay Lynne: State Sector Amendment Bill (No 3) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Pillay Lynne: State Sector Amendment Bill (No 3) — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:616;Page:12194] 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
: 
 I am very proud to stand and speak in support of this bill. In doing so I want to pay tribute to all who were involved during the submission process. I include in that the unions—the New Zealand Educational Institute and the Post Primary Teachers Association—which the other side of the House is so intent on bad-mouthing and the boards of trustees that gave very common-sense practical and constructive advice. This bill has improved it has been made better and that is certainly because of the good submissions we received. 
This bill deals with technical redundancy and there is some real common sense in that. The bill recognises that the top priority in our education sector is job priority—that is the main focus—and that in a redundancy situation people do not actually double dip. That is they do not keep their job and get paid redundancy compensation. I also say as a proud trade unionist that unlike the Opposition I do support the idea that if people are in the position of withdrawing their labour in a strike situation they should not get paid for it. That is supported by all union members and everyone involved on this side of the House. It is quite strange that we hear contrary arguments from the Opposition.
Obituaries — United Nations Headquarters Baghdad—Bomb Victims 
Obituaries — United Nations Headquarters Baghdad—Bomb Victims 
[Volume:611;Page:8025] 
Tuesday 26 August 2003 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Obituaries 
United Nations Headquarters Baghdad—Bomb Victims 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade) 
: 
 I move  
That the House notes with deep sorrow the death last week of 22 people from the bombing of the United Nations headquarters in Baghdad including Sergio Vieira de Mello the United Nations’ special representative to Iraq. 
 The attack was a tragedy for the United Nations and our condolences go to all those families who have suffered loss and to those including New Zealander Major Todd Hart who were injured in the bombing. I pay particular tribute to Sergio de Mello. He was one of the United Nations’ most able people. He worked tirelessly to restore order in many regions racked by war. New Zealanders who worked with him in East Timor and in other areas valued highly his integrity and unquestionable competence. This tragedy must not be allowed to stand in the way of the vital humanitarian role that the United Nations has to play in Iraq which New Zealand fully supports. I am sure that all parties—and several have asked me to mention them during my comments—and all New Zealanders will join in deploring this attack and in expressing our sympathy to the families who have lost members as victims in this disaster. 
Motion agreed to. 
Honourable members stood as a mark of respect.
Hunt Jonathan: Estimates Debate —  Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Hunt Jonathan: Estimates Debate —  Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:610;Page:7285] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Standing Orders deal with that. There is a Standing Orders Committee. I am perfectly happy to have time set aside at that committee to consider the issue and I think that is the appropriate place to do it. I invite the member if he so wishes to make a short submission to the committee and I will ensure it is heard.
Vote: Consumer Protection (Definitions of Goods and Services) Bill — In Committee 
Vote: Consumer Protection (Definitions of Goods and Services) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6888] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 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 1 agreed to.
Prebble Richard: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Prebble Richard: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:608;Page:5168] 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 Mr Cullen’s contribution would have some merit if he had not decided to edit the question. The bit that he failed to read out is “… and any economic effects of the corresponding electricity shortage;”. The whole House realises that Treasury must have already done studies and modelling on the impact of what appears to be a disastrous shortage of electricity. That is not the responsibility of the Minister of Energy who is trying to produce the stuff. The actual consequences on the whole economy are questions for the Minister of Finance to answer. Frankly how can the Minister of Energy answer as to what Mr Cullen meant when he said there was no expectation of a dry year as early as 2003? That statement which he made to the House yesterday as a Minister appears to be the basis of economic planning in New Zealand and I think he should be asked to account for it.